JUDGMENT

Gangeshawar Prasad, J. - These connected Second Appeals came up before us upon a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court. They arise out of a suit instituted in the Civil Court by Lalta and Gomti plaintiffs against Ambika defendant for possession over three plots of agricultural land and for recovery of Rs. 100/- as damages, The suit was described by the plaintiffs as one under Section 209 of the U.I Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act (hereinafter called the Act) . Th Additional Munsif of Basti who tried the suit granted to the plaintiffs a decree of possession only in respect of plot No. 9 and for a sum of Rs. 33/- as damages. Wit respect to the other two plots and the claim for damages the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Against the decree of the Additional Munsif both the partition preferred appeals before the Civil Judg of Basti but their appeals were dismisses Both of them then filed appeals in the court, the appeal of the plaintiffs being Second Appeal No. 1920 of 1959 and that o the defendant being Second Appeal No. 3062 of 1959.

2. The relevant facts are brief and are ne longer in dispute. Basdeo, father of the plaintiffs, had unusufructuarily mortgage( plots Nos. 52, 291, 91 and 290 with Sri Mohan, father of the defendant. In 1941 the plaintiffs brought a suit for redemption of the mortgage against the defendant The suit was compromised, and under the terms of the compromise plots Nos. 52 an 291 went immediately into the possession of the plaintiffs free from mortgage and the remaining three plots were left in possession of the defendant to be redeemed the plaintiffs after a period of twenty year from the date of the compromise. Th( position on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting under the Act, therefore was that that the plaintiffs were mortgagor of plots Nos. 90, 91 and 291, which are the plots in dispute at present, and the defendant was their mortgagee in possession There is also no dispute about the act that the plots were in the personal cultivation of the defendant on that date In the suit which has given rise to these appeals the plaintiffs claimed that all the three plot, in dispute were either Sir or Khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of the mortgage and, consequently, under Section 14 of the Act, the defendant ceased to have any right to hold or to be in possession of them with affect from the date of vesting. The defendant denied the Sir and Khudkasht character of the plots, but both the courts below have found that the plots were either Sir Khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date the mortgage and this finding was not challenged before us. In spite of this finding, however, the courts below dismissed re suit of the plaintiffs in respect of plots Nos. 90 and 290 on the ground that the Defendant had, under Section 14 (2) (b) of the Act, paid to the State Government a sum equal to five times the rent of plots calculate at hereditary rates within six months f the date of vesting and the Civil Court ad, therefore, no jurisdiction to pass a dew for possession regarding the aforesaid two plots. In taking this view they purported to follow a Division Bench decision of this court, Bhikhi Singh v. Lakhpat, 1958 ALJ 302. The suit was filed on April 5, 1956 and on that date the forum for the institution of a suit under Section 209 of the Act was to Civil Court. The courts below were the taken in regard to this matter, but they eld that so far as plots Nos. 90 and 290 ere concerned the possession of the defendant was not that of a trespasser and he was of liable to ejectment by means of a suit led in the Civil Court under the afore-aid provision. We may at once say that his view of the courts below is based upon (Sic)misapprehension of the legal position. obviously, a plaintiff in a civil suit is not enquired to indicate the provision of law under which the suit has been instituted )y him, because a Civil Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excep