JUDGMENT

Piggot, J. - This is Jin appeal by the defendants against an order of the learned District Judge of Aligarh passed under Order XLF, Rule 23, remanding to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh for decision on the merits a suit which had been dismissed by that Court. The learned Subordinate Judge had hold that, on the facts stated in the plaint, the suit was not cognizable by him, being barred by Section 107 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act 11. of 1901). This is the finding which the learned District Judge has reversed on appeal and his decision is now challenged before us. There was a mortgage of some zemindari property on which a suit was brought and a decree for sale was made; after the mortgage, but before the decree for sale, the mortgagors executed a perpetual lease in respect of certain lands appertaining to the share in question. In execution of the decree for sale the zemindari property was put to sale and was purchased by the present plaintiff. He brought this suit in order to get rid of the perpetual lease. As originally drafted, the relief claimed in the plaint was recovery of possession over the land in question as against the defendants-lessees. In reply the defendants-lessees claimed the benefit of Section 202 of the Tenancy Act, and were accordingly directed to institute a suit in the He venue Court for the determination of the question whether or not they held the land in suit as tenants of the plaintiff. They instituted a suit accordingly; but when that suit came up for trial the present plaintiff, who was defendant in the Revenue Court, admitted the existence of a tenancy. He pleaded that the precise nature of that tenancy, and in particular the validity of the perpetual lease under which the present defendants claimed to hold, was not a matter for determination in that suit. On this understanding a decree was passed to the effect that the plaintiffs in the Revenue Court, who are appellants before this Court, held the land in suit as tenants of the present plaintiff-respondent. After the proceedings in the Revenue Court had thus terminated, the respondent obtained leave to amend his plaint, by asking for a simple declaration that the perpetual lease in question was not binding upon him. It was the plaint as thus amended winch the learned Subordinate Judge has held not to be cognizable by the Civil Court. The provisions of Section 167 of the Agra Tenancy Act have been discussed in a number of rulings, the most recent of which is that reported in Ram Singh v. Rao Girraj Singh 26 Ind. Cas. 731 : 12 A.L.J. 1252 : 37 A. 41. As will be apparent from that report, I am myself deeply committed to the view that the provisions of Section 167 of the Tenancy Act do bar a suit like the present. The plaintiff in this case, having obtained possession of the zeminndari share on his auction purchase, found in existence a perpetual lease of a portion of the property which he regarded as interfering with his full enjoyment of the property acquired by him. His natural remedy, if as a matter of fact the lease was executed under such circumstances as not to be binding upon him, was by way of a suit for ejectment u/s 58 of the Tenancy Act. Such a suit would full within the provisions of serial number 29 of group (c) of the fourth Schedule to the Act in question and would he cognizable only by the He venue Courts. The plaintiff in such a case would seek for ejectment of the defendants-lessees on the ground that they hold only as tenants from year to year. In reply the perpetual lease in favour of the said defendants would be set up, and in order to the determination of the question thus raised the Revenue Court would have to decide whether the said lease was valid and binding on the plaintiff. The question is whether the plaintiff can be allowed to oust the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, and bring his suit before a different forum by seeking for a mere declaration. In the judgment which was before the Bench of th