Judgment:
Agarwala, J.
1. This is an appeal against an order directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court.
2. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for a declaration that the trees situated in a grove in a certain mahal had been planted by him, that he was their owner and that the defendants had no share or right in them. He alleged that his mother, Musammat Faiyazunnissa was the original owner of the mahal and that she had given him permission to plant the grove in question on the clear understanding that on her death the grove will be allotted to him as a part of his share. That Musammat Faiyazuunissa bad died and defendant 1, plaintiffs brother, was claiming the grove as belonging to him on account of a deed of sale alleged to have been executed by Musammat Faiyazunnissa in her life-time. According to him this deed of sale was not binding on the plaintiff and he was entitled to be declared as the owner of the trees of the grove.
3. The defence was that there was no such understanding between Musammat Faiyazun-aissa and the plaintiff, as alleged by the plain. tiff, and that Musammat Faiyazunnisaa had transferred the plots, constituting the grove to the defendant in her life-time by means of a sale deed. The defendant further alleged that this was a suit which was not cognizable by the civil Court but was cognizable by a revenue Court.
4. Learned Civil Judge held that the suit was cognizable by the revenue Court and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff has come up in appeal against that order to this Court.
5. The allegations made in the plaint make lit quite clear that according to the plaintiff, the grove had been planted with the permission of the then landlord, namely his own mother. The relief claimed by him is a relief which could have been claimed by a grove-holder, namely, the ownership of the trees. This relief could be claimed in the revenue Court by virtue of the provisions of Section 206, clause (f) read with Section 59, U.P. Tenancy Act. In the relief claimed in the plaint, it is not specifically mentioned that the plaintiff was a grove-holder. That is, however, immaterial, as, in substance, the relief amounts to a claim which can be made by a grove-holder.
6. In our opinion, the suit was maintainable by the revenue Court alone and the lower Court was right in ordering the plaint to be returned (for presentation to the proper Court. There is no force in this appeal and we accordingly dismiss it with costs.