JUDGMENT

1. This is the plaintiff's appeal from an order dated the 19th January 1925 of the District Judge of Fyzabad, setting aside the decree dated the 20th October 1924, of the Subordinate Judge of Sultanpur and returning the plaint to the plaintiff-appellant for presentation to the proper Court. The appeal is under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (a), of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge of the Court below is of opinion that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of entertain the suit, out of which this appeal arises is barred by Clause 10(b) of Section 108 of the Oudh Rent Act. The plaintiff's case as stated in the plaint is that the property in suit was held by Mt. Ramdei in the character of a Hindu widow that Mt. Ramdei died on the 10th November 1919 and that the plaintiff and the defendants were' the only reversionary heirs of her husband at the time of her death but that the defendant took forcible possession of the entire property to the exclusion of the plaintiff. The relief prayed for was a decree for possession.

2. The property in suit consists of certain plots of culturable land and certain other plots bearing the character of groves. The landlord of the entire property in suit is the Raja of Amethi. On the averments the plaint and the pleadings in the case it is clear that the title on which the plaintiff's claim rests relates to a tenancy holding under Section 48 of the Oudh Rent Act. This being so, the present case is clearly governed by the principle of the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of Thakur Bikaramjit Singh v. Mt. Bansraji A.I.R. 1925 Oudh 274. According to the view adopted in that case the cognizance of the present suit by the Civil Court is barred by Clause 10(6) of Section 108 of the Oudh Rent Act. We are not prepared to disagree with the decision in that case.

3. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the suit in so far as it related to the possession of the groves was cognizable by the Civil Court and that consequently on the principle of the decision in the cases of Abdul Aziz v. Nawab Malika Mukhara Uzma Badshah Mahal Sahiba [1898] 1 O.C. Supp. 1 and Babu Umrao Bahadur v. The Secretary of State for India in Council [1914] 1 O.L.J. 124, the whole suit was cognizable by that Court.

4. We are, however, of opinion that those decisions are inapplicable to the present case. The groves as much as the agricultural area are held under the same tenancy and in the plaint no distinction is made between the two in respect of the plaintiff's title. The title is the same and that is the title under Section 48 of the Oudh Rent Act.

5. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.