' The respondents herein were the tenants of the suit land on behalf of the petitioner and in the events that happened, respondent No, 1 brought suit for declaration that he was in possession of the suit land as tenant alongwith pro forma respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and that the deeds of relinquishment dated 13th July, 1968, 19th July, 1968 and 3rd August, 1968 were not executed in favour of the petitioner herein but these deeds were the result of fraud and the entry made in the Roznamcha Waqiati, dated 29th July, 1971 and thereafter the mutation effected in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner are wrong and ineffective against the necessary right of the respondents. The petitioner contested the suit denying the allegations of respondent No,
1. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed issues and recorded their evidence thereupon and in consequence he decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, vide his judgment, dated 15th January, 1974 the legality of which was questioned by the petitioner in appeal before the District Judge who concurred in the finding of the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal, vide his judgment, dated 13th July, 1974. Hence this revision application.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the evidence on record and perused the impugned judgments of the two Courts below. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in a case of this nature, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction, therefore, the two Courts below were wrong to hold that they had the jurisdiction to decide the case. I see every force in this argument. It is conceded that the respondents had not denied the ownership of the petitioner with respect to the suit land, therefore, it was obviously a case between landlord and tenants and if the respondents were aggrieved of the deeds and the revenue entries about their relinquishment, which according to them were the result of fraud, they should have approached the Revenue Court for the correction of the alleged entries and in similar matter, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to go into it.
' As a result, this revision application is allowed with the observation that if the respondents feel aggrieved of the entries against their possessory right as tenants with respect to the suit land, they may seek their remedy in the revenue Court. No order as to costs.