JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant against the decree of Munsiff, Bundi, under sec. 9 Specific Relief Act.
(2.) GOPAL and Bhagota brought the present suit on the allegation that plot Nos. 1136, 1139, 1140 and 1381 along with half share in a well were in the possession of GOPAL plaintiff from the time of his ancestors for the last seventy years, that for the last three years he had been cultivating this plot in partnership with Bhagota on 'adholi', and that they were wrongfully dispossessed by the two defendants on 30th July, 1957. The suit was instituted on 2nd January, 1958. It was contested inter alia on the ground that the two defendants were cultivating the plot with the consent of Bhagota to whom it had been let out by GOPAL. Some other grounds Were also taken. The learned Munsiff believed the case put forward on behalf of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. The first ground taken on behalf of the applicant is that the suit was not triable by the civil court in view of s. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as it was of the nature specified in the third schedule at No. 23 namely, a suit for ejectment of trespasser, for which a provision has been made under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The relevant portion of the latter section runs as follows: - " (1) A trespasser shall. . . . . . . . . . . . be liable to ejectment. . . . . . . . . . . . on the suit of the person or persons entitled to admit him as tenant. " It is true that the evidence on record goes to show that the present plaintiffs could have instituted a suit under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for the ejectment of trespassers. But the jurisdiction is to be determined on basis of allegations contained in the plaint. What the plaint alleges is that the plaintiffs were in peaceful possession and that they were wrongfully dispossessed on 30th July, 1957 by the defendants. The allegations made in the plaint are not sufficient for the purposes of bringing a suit under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. On behalf of the applicant reliance was placed on some observations made in a decision of Judicial Commissioner, Tripura in Gouranga Chandra Deb Vs. Satish Chandra Dev and others (1) to the effect that where the Legislature has prescribed a particular method for the redress of an alleged wrong that method alone should be open to the aggrieved party and that tenancy rights being a creation of a statute the persons aggrieved under that law should have recourse to the remedies provided in the tenancy law. These observations were merely obiter as no question arose for decision in that case as to whether a suit under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act was maintainable with regard to an agricultural holding. Apart from this, the learned Judge did not consider that the right to continue to enjoy peaceful possession over the land in one's possession arises under the general law which is enforceable by bringing a suit under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act and unless such remedy is clearly barred by the statute, it can be availed of. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in Beni Madho Singh Vs. Prag (2) that whether or not the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted depends upon the allegations made in the plaint. If on those allegations a suit would lie under the revenue law, then the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit under sec. 9 Specific Relief Act would be barred. I, therefore, hold that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The next objection on behalf of the applicant is that the learned Munsiff erred in decreeing the suit in respect of half share in the plaint, and, secondly, because no decree of an undivided share in property can be granted under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. Neither of these contentions has any force in my opinion. 5 The facts necessary for granting relief to the plaintiffs over the well had been pleaded, and the court was entitled to grant relief in respect of it as on the evidence it found that the plaintiffs were entitled to such relief. The well is an appendage of the holding in respect of which the suit was brought. In Yellayi Sannaya Vs. Sannayaiulu Ramesham and others (3), it was no doubt held that a court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree in favour of a plaintiff who claims an undivided share in a property under sec. 9, Specific Relief Act. A contrary view was, however, taken in Remachandra Pate V. Shridhar and others (4 ). I am in respectful agreement with the latter view. A man in joint possession of an immovable property is, in my opinion, as much in physical possession of his share as the entire body of co-sharers are in physical possession of the whole, and such joint possession can as well be physically restored in respect of his share as the possession of the whole can be restored to the entire body of co-sharers. Lastly, an attempt was made to challenge the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Munsiff. The learned Munsiff duly applied his mind to the evidence on record and his findings of fact cannot be challenged in revision. I accordingly see no reason to interfere with the decree of the Court below and dismiss the revision application. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs. .;