A.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) This Full Bench has been constituted to consider the question "Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by virtue of Section 242 of the U. P. Tenancy Act in respect of suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for obtaining) possession over agricultural land from which the plaintiff alleged his illegal dispossession within six months of the date of the-suit". The reference has been made by Mukherji, J. as he felt that there was a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court, the one being in the case of Ganga Din v. Gokul Prasad, 1951 All LJ 290: (AIR 1950 All 407) (A) and the other being an unreported decision in Jag Narain v. Bhagwati Prasad, Civil Revn. No. 1548 of 1951 (since reported in 1957 All LJ 783: (AIR 1958 All 48} (B) and that it was desirable that the conflict be resolved.
(2.) The learned counsel wanted to argue a point in connection with Section 40(2) of the Land Revenue Act also but we did not allow him to do so because only the question mentioned above has been referred to us.
(3.) The plaintiff filed the suit on 30-11-1948 for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act alleging that they were in actual possession of the land in disoute (which was admittedly an agricultural land) but had been wrongfully dispossessed by the defendants otherwise than in accordance with law in November 1948. The defendants contested the suit and disputed the correctness of the plain-tiff's allegations. They said that they had themselves been in possession of the land as tenants of the plaintiff for more than 12 years. It was therefore not open to the plaintiffs to eject them. They also pleaded that the plaintiffs had filed the suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act only to evade the jurisdiction of the revenue court as the suit if filed there could never succeed.;