JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, J. - This is an application in revision from an order of the lower appellate Court setting aside an order of the first Court returning the plaint for presentation to proper Court. As the question involved is whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, this would be a matter relating to jurisdiction if the Court below has acted illegally or with material irregularity. A civil revision would, therefore, lie.

2. The suit admittedly relates to a large number of agricultural holdings only. According to the plaint, the plaintiffs attempted to eject the defendants through the revenue Court, alleging that they were subtenants. The revenue Court found that they were not subtenants but were tenants-in-chief, being in possession of undivided property as members of one family, and dismissed the ejectment suits. The plaintiffs now in their plaint repeat their case that the defendants are in possession as subtenants, the plots having been allotted to the plaintiffs under a private arrangement. They go on to allege in the alternative that if the said private arrangement is disputed they should be granted a decree for partition of these plots Although the plaint ha