Mokoond vs. Jonardun, 15 W. R., 208; but see also Nund Kishore vs. Huree Pershad, 13 W. R., 64; and the cases referred to under Watson vs. Collector of Rajshaye, supra. Ex-Parte.-An ex-parte decree is a final decree-Modhusudun vs. Brae, I. L. R., 16 Cal., 300.

Explanation V.—Private right claimed in Common.—In Arlett vs. Ellis, 7 B. and C., 346, A sued B for damages for trespassing on a piece of land of the plaintiff's, and B's defence was that he was a tenant of the manor of Cromdall, and that he and every other tenant of the manor was entitled to pasture his and their cattle on the said piece of land, and that this was the trespass complained of. A judgment for the plaintiff in a case of that kind in England would be admissible in evidence in a subsequent action between A and any other tenant of the manor, in respect of the same right of pasturage, but would not be res judicata-Taylor on Evidence, 4th ed., 1419. A, therefore, to prevent being harassed by the other tenants of the manor and to prevent being compelled to bring separate actions against each, would file a bill in Equity, called a bill of peace, stating the claim of the tenant, that he had judgments in his favour showing the claim was unfounded, that the tenants were too numerous to bring before the Court, and praying that the claim be declared unfounded in equity, and that the defendant and all the other tenants should be restrained from asserting their pretended right. If the original judgment at law had been in favour of the defendant, one or more of the tenants in behalf of themselves and others would take a similar course, and decrees in these equity suits would bind or, as the case might be, be taken advantage of by the absent parties. (Under the modern English practice there would, of course, be no necessity to proceed at law in the first instance.) Other instances of bills seeking relief on behalf of or against parties not before the Court will be found in Cockburn vs. Thomson, 16 Vesey, 32, and notes to section 30, post. In all suits of this kind it clearly appeared that the suit was brought by or against one or more parties personally and on behalf of or as representing a large number of persons not before the Court. If it be held that Explanation V refers to suits of this nature (see Kalishunkur vs. Gopal Chunder, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 49; Thanakoti vs. Muniappa, I. L. R., 8 Mad., 496; Hazir vs. Sonamonee, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 31; and Devi vs. Kelu, I. L. R., 10 Mad., 79); then as no suit of that kind can be maintained without the leave of the Court first had and obtained, we have an easy test by which to ascertain whether any particular case comes within this Explanation.

It has been held not to apply to a suit for a watercourse-Kalishunkur vs. Gopal Chunder, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 49; nor to a decree against one of several co-sharers in a property-Hazir vs. Sonamonee, supra. But see Chandu vs. Kunhammed, I. L. R., 14 Mad., 324. It was applied in Madhavan vs. Keshavan, I. L. R., 11 Mad., 191; where successive suits were brought by different trustees of certain property. As to the position of the Karnavan of a Malabar tarwad, see Sri Devi vs. Kelu, I. L. R., 10 Mad., 79; Thanakati vs. Muniappa, I. L. R., 8 Mad., 496; Subramanyan vs. Gopala, I. L. R., 10 Mad., 223; Shan Karan vs. Kesavan, I. L. R., 15 Mad. 6.

When foreign judgment no bar to suit in British India.

14. No foreign judgment shall operate as a bar to a suit in British India

(a) if it has not been given on the merits of the case: (b) if it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or of any law in force in British India:

(c) if it is in the opinion of the Court before which it is produced contrary to natural justice:

(d) if it has been obtained by fraud:

(e) if it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in British India.

"Where a suit is instituted in British India on the judgment of any foreign Court in Asia or Africa except a Court of Record established by Letters Patent of Her Majesty or any predecessor of Her Majesty or a Supreme Consular Court established by an Order of Her Majesty in Council, the Court in which the suit is instituted shall not

be precluded from inquiry into the merits of the case in which. the judgment was passed." [Act VII of 1888, section 5.]

This section applies to H. C. and P. S. C. C.

Effect of Foreign Judgment: Parties.-A foreign judgment decreeing a sum of money is in England only evidence of the debt, and if sued on, the plaintiff cannot join the debtors and others on the allegation that the latter were trustees for the former -Hawksford vs. Giffard, 12 App. Cas., 122, but in India the judgment creates a res judicata-Bababhat vs. Narharbhat, I. L. R., 13 Bom., 224, and see Kandasami vs. Moidin, I. L. R., 2 Mad., 337, and compare Trafford vs. Blanc, 36 C. D., 600.

Bar an Action.-The mere fact that a suit is pending in a foreign Court at the time the suit is instituted in this country is no bar-The Delta, 1 P. D., 393; Seal vs. Chatterjee, 1 Taylor, 418. A foreign judgment on matters of form only will not bar a suit in this country on the merits-The Delta, 1 P. D., 393; nor will an ex-parte decree against a native of British India, not residing within the jurisdiction of the Court on a cause of action arising in British India-Hinde vs. Ponnath, I. L. R., 4 Mad., 359: but see Bangarusami vs. Balasubramanian, I. L. R., 13, Mad., 496. An action cannot be maintained on the decree of a foreign Court against the drawer of a bill neither domiciled, resident, nor possessing property in the foreign State, who is found to have casually resorted thither and drawn the bill for a sum found due to his creditor-Mathappa vs. Chellappa, I. L. R., 1 Mad., 196.

Execution-The judgment of a foreign Court obtained on a decree in British India, is no bar to execution of the original decree-Fakuruddeen Mahomed vs. The Official Trustee, I. L. R., 7 Cal., 82.

Suit on Judgment.-In Bombay no suit was maintainable, founded upon the judgment of a Court of a Native State. Such judgment could only be enforced as provided by section 434 of the Code of Civil Procedure-Bhavanishankar vs. Pursadri, I. L. R., 6 Bom., 292; 4 Himmatlal vs. Shivajirav, I. L. Rep., 8 Bom., 593; but in Madras the opposite view prevailed-Sama Rayar vs. Annamalai, I. L. R., 7 Mad., 164. The last paragraph was added to this section to enforce the view of the Madras Court. See section 229B, post.

The judgment sued on must be final. That is to say final in the sense of being a binding final decision as to the rights of the parties-Nourion vs. Freeman, 37 C. D., 244; and it is not enforceable if the Court had not jurisdiction, or it was obtained by fraud, even if the question of fraud had been investigated by the foreign tribunal-Abailoff vs. Oppenheimer, 10 Q. B. D., 295, or, it seems, had been known and not raised— Nouvion vs. Freeman, 35 C. D., p. 720; 37 C. D., 244.

The rule in Story (Conf. of Laws) is, that a foreign judgment, to be binding, must have finally determined the matters in dispute, and must be an adjudication upon the actual merits; they may be impeached on the ground that the foreign Courts had no jurisdiction, whether over the cause, over the subject-matter, or over the parties, or that the defendant never was summoned to answer or had an opportunity of making his defence, or that the judgment was fraudulently obtained. This was adopted by the Calcutta High Court-Sreehuree vs. Gopal Chunder, 15 W. R., 500; see also Messina vs. Petrocochino, L. R., 4 P. C., p. 157; and the rules laid down in Rousillon vs. Rousillon, 14 C. D., 351; Edulji v. Manekji, I.L.R., 11 Bom., 241; Bangarusami vs. Balasubramanian, I. L. R., 13 Mad., 496. A suit was brought against the defendants in the French Court at Mahé, and they made no objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, but appeared and defended the suit, which was decreed against them. In a suit upon the decree of the French Court, the defendants pleaded that it had been passed without jurisdiction, as they had always lived in British territory. Held by the Madras High Court, that the defendants having taken the chance of a judgment in their favour, which would, if obtained, have relieved them from all liability, they were equitably estopped from afterwards pleading want of jurisdiction-Kandoth vs. Neelancherayil, 8 Mad., 14; Fazal vs. Gafar, I. L. R., 15 Mad., 83; Nallatambi vs. Ponnusami, I. L. R., 2 Mad., 400, p. 404; Kaliyugam vs. Chokalinga, I. L. R., 7 Mad., 105. See also Kandasami vs. Moidin Sahib, I. L. R., 2 Mad., 337. But if a party, sued in a foreign Court not having jurisdiction, protest against the jurisdiction, he does not voluntarily submit, although he may have appealed from the decision of the first Court without repeating his objection, and the judgment cannot be sued upon in British India-Parry & Co. vs. Pillai, I. L. R., 2 Mad., 407. And even if a Court has jurisdiction to try cases between natives and foreigners, arising out of transactions in a foreign country, yet if the cause of action does not arise within the local limits of the Court, nor the defendant reside in it when the action is brought, the judgment is not a bar-Hinde vs. Ponnath, I. L. R., 4 Mad., 359. For the effect of contracts for the compounding of criminal offences against the law of a foreign country, see Subraya Pillai vs. Subraya, 4 Mad., 14. As to irregularity in procedure or limitation in a foreign country, see Nallatambi Mudaliar vs. Pillai, I. L. R., 2 Mad., 400.

Court in which suit

to be instituted.

CHAPTER II.

OF THE PLACE OF SUING.

15. Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

Act VIII of 1859, section 6. This section applies to H. C. and P. S. C. C.

Court of the Lowest Grade Competent.-This means a Court to which the Civil Procedure Code is applicable-Mirkhan vs. Kadarsa, I. L. R., 13 Mad., 145. It is the actual value of claim or subject-matter of the claim by the plaintiff that primâ facie determines jurisdiction - Lakshman Bhatkar vs. Babaji, I. L. R., 8 Bom., 31; but formerly the stamp fee was governed by a different principle-Kirty Churn vs. Aunath, I. L. R., 8 Cal., 757; Daya Chand vs. Hemchand, I. L. R., 4 Bom., 515. This has been modified by section 8, Act VII of 1887.

How Determined. By section 12 of the Letters Patent, the High Court of Cal cutta has not jurisdiction where the "debt, damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed 100 rupees," and it has been held that the bona fide nature of the claim and not the decree determines the jurisdiction. Thus, where a person sued bond fide to recover 843 rupees damages in the High Court, and through defective proof failed to obtain a larger amount than 75 rupees, it was held that the High Court had jurisdiction-Sikhur Chand vs. Sooring Mull, 1 Hyde, 272; compare Mohabir Singh vs. Behari Lal, I. L. R., 13 Alla., 320; but a person cannot give a Court jurisdiction in such a case by adding on to his claim sums which he could not recover, was not entitled to, and which he added simply to give jurisdiction-Bonomally Nawn vs. Campbell, 19 W. R., 20; but see Damodhar vs. Trimbak, I. L R., 10 Bom., 370; Lakshman vs. Babaji, I. L. R., 8 Bom., 31; or sums which he did not claim in the suit-Motoo vs. Verapah Chetty, 17 W. R., 243. But the mere fact that a suit has been over-valued does not deprive the Court in which the suit is brought of jurisdiction, if the over-valuation was bona fide and had not the effect of altering the appellate jurisdiction-Rajendro Lall vs. Shama Churn, I. L. R., 5 Cal., 188; Kondaji vs. Anau, I. L. R., 7 Bom., 448.

It is the money-value of the original suit that fixes the jurisdiction of the Courts throughout the subsequent litigation in its several stages, not the value of what has been left in dispute-Mahabir Singh vs. Behari Lall, I. L. R., 13 Alla., 320; and cases cited; Boidya Nath vs. Makhan Lall, I. L. R., 17 Cal., 680; Muthusami Pillai vs. Muthu Chidambara, 7 Mad., 356; Dooly Chund vs. Nirban Singh, 18 W. R., 262, nor is the jurisdiction lost in execution, because the interest accrued after decree has raised the amount due above the money limit-Shamrav vs. Niloji, I. L. R., 10 Bom., 200. Thus where a person sought to recover one instalment of a bond conditioned for the payment of Rs. 500 per month, and secured by a penalty of Rs. 50,000, the suit was held to be within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court of Calcutta-Smith vs. Sims, Gasper, 145; and a Munsif has jurisdiction in a suit for money not exceeding Rs. 1,000 charged on land, although the value of the land is greater, such land lying within the local limits of his jurisdiction-Janki Das vs. Badri Nath, I. L. R., 2 Alla., 698; Gobind Singh vs. Kallu, I. L. R., 2 Alla., 778; Bahadur vs. Nawab Jan, I. L. R., 3 Alla., 822; Modhusudene vs. Rakhal, I. L. R., 15 Cal., 104; see, however, Krishnama Chariar vs. Srinivasa, I. L. R., 4 Mad., 339. If the plaint is amended so as to increase the original value, jurisdiction may be destroyed — Chandu vs. Komi, I. L. R., 9 Mad., 208.

District Court.-Competent to Try.-All suits for infringement of copyright brought in the mofussil must be laid in the District Judge's Court-Sheikh Hamidoolah vs. Mahomed, 7 C. L. 471; Ledgard vs. Bull, 13 Ind. App., 134. So a suit to dismiss a zemindary Karnam in Madras-Venkatanarasmha vs. Suryanarayanai, I. L. R., 12 Mad., 188. In Bombay suits against a municipality-Ahmedabad Municipality vs. Jamal, I. L. R., 3 Bom., 146; and see Mula vs. Sayad, I. L. R., 7 Bom., 100; or against Government or any officer in his official capacity-Gopi vs. Sheso, I. L. R., 12 Bom., 358.

Territorial Jurisdiction. - Under Act VI of 1871, a District Judge could assign local limits to the jurisdiction of subordinate officers and beyond than the officers had ordinarily no jurisdiction. This is not the effect of section 13, Act XII of 1887-Dakhina Churn vs. Bilash Chunder, I. L. R., 18 Cal., 526.

Valuation of Suit.-By chapter 3, Act XII of 1887 the ordinary jurisdiction of District Judges and Subordinate Judges extends, subject to the present section, to all original suits; that of Munsifs to all such suits in which the subject matter in dispute does not exceed one thousand rupees; and an appeal lies to the District Judge where the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute (in the original suit-does not exceed Rs. 5,000 [compare Noggendro Chundro Mittro vs. Kishen Soondory, 19 W. R., 133, 137-8]. The valuation of a suit for the purposes of stamp-duty, and the valuation of

the subject-matter of the suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court, may be different. Thus, an appeal to a District Judge against a decree in a suit for property of the value of more than Rs. 5,000 will be set aside in special appeal though the valuation for the purpose of stamp-duty may have been less than Rs. 5,000, and though the first appeal may have been heard by consent of the parties-Aukhil Chunder vs. Mohini Mohun, 4 C. L. R., 491. But now note the effect of the Act VII of 1889, and section 578, post.

Redemption Suit.-Amanat Begam vs. Bhajan, I. L. R., 8 Alla., 438; Rupchand vs. Balvant, I. L. R., 11 Bom., 591; Ramchandra vs. Janardan, I. L. R., 14 Bom., 19; Amrita vs. Naru, I. L. R., 13 Bom., 489; Sakharam vs. Shripati, I. L. R., 16 Bom., 183. Alternative Relief. The larger of the two relief determines the stamp-Kashinath vs. Govinda, I. L. R., 15 Bom., 82.

To enforce Registration.-See Ramakrishnanma vs. Bhagamma, I. L. R., 13 Mad., 56. Partition.-Boidyanath vs. Makhanlal, I. L. R., 17 Cal., 680; see Hikmatali vs. Wali Unnissa, I. L. R., 12 Alla., 507; Krishnasami vs. Kanakasabai, I. L. R., 14 Mad., 183. Sale.-Suit to set aside by a shareholder-Unnoda Pershad vs. Erskine, 21 W. R., 68. To set aside an Instrument.-See Kanaram vs. Komappan, I. L. R., 14 Mad., 169. No Value.-Where the subject-matter of the suit has no money-value, as in a suit for possession of a minor son, the amount the stamp fee is governed by s. vi, art. 17, of the Court Fees Act-Krishna vs. Reade, I. L. R., 9 Mad., 31, but jurisdiction may not depend on that alone, and if the management of property is involved its value decides jurisdiction -Kristna vs. Ramas, I. L. R., 11 Mad., 267. A suit for the removal of a Karnavan -Nambiar vs. Nambiar, I. L. R., 4 Mad., 146; or for restitution of conjugal rightsGolam Rahman vs. Fatima, I. L. R., 13 Cal., 232; Mowla Newaz vs. Sajidunnissa, I. L. R., 18 Cal., 378, is incapable of valuation; see also Mulla Adjim, I. L. R., 14 Cal., 351. See section 9, Act VII of 1887.

Shall be Instituted. This section refers to procedure only, and regulates the practice of the Courts, but does not deprive any Court of jurisdiction which it may otherwise possess. Thus, where a Subordinate Judge entertained a suit contrary to this section, the High Court held that it was a mere irregulaity which did not prejudice the appellant, and refused to enter on the question of valuation with a view to determine in what Court the suit should have been brought-Matra Mondal vs. Hari Mohun, I. L. R., 17 Cal., 155; Krishnasami vs. Kanakesahai, I. L. R., 14 Mad., 183. So, where the first Appellate Court dismissed a suit on the ground that the subject-matter of the suit being less than a thousand rupees, the suit should have been brought in the Munsif's Court, and that the Subordinate Judge had acted without jurisdiction in trying it; the High Court decided that, under Act VI, 1871, section 19, the Subordinate Judge was empowered to try causes of any value, and although he should, if he had found the value of the subject of the suit to be under a thousand rupees, have sent it to the Munsif, still the fact that he tried it himself was no ground for error in special appeal-Sufeeoollah Sircar vs. Begum Bibee, 25 W. R., 219. So it has been held the fact of a suit decreed by a Subordinate Judge for less than a thousand rupees being cognizable by a Munsif's Court is no ground for dismissing it; but the plaintiff should not be allowed more cost than if he had sued in the lower Court-Joy Kishen vs. Turnbull, 24 W. R., 137; and see Masaoolah Khan vs. Ram Lall, I. L. R., 6. Cal., 6; Nidhi Lal vs. Mazhar Husain, I. L. R., 7 Alla., 230; Krishnasami vs. Kanakasabai, supra; see, however, Ramayya, vs. Subbarayudu, I. L. R., 13 Mad., 24; Velayudam vs. Arunachala, I. L. R., 13 Mad., 273, and compare section 11, Act VIII of 1887.

Subordinate Judge-As to the case of a Subordinate Judge appointed in Bombay under sections, 23 & 24 Act XIV of 1869, see Shri Sidheshwar vs. Harihar, I. L. R., 12 Bom., 155.

Under-Value.-But if a suit was under valued, and taken into the wrong Court, it was otherwise Russick Chunder vs. Ram Lall, 22 W. R., 301, unless the objector was equitably estopped, or had delayed in raising the objection. Plaintiff applied before a Subordinate Judge to sue in forma pauperis, and was met by the plea of over-valuation, and the Subordinate Judge, holding that the suit was over-valued, declined to entertain it. Subsequently, he obtained a decree before the Munsif, and defendant appealing, raised the objection of valuation, and the suit was dismissed as beyond the Munsif's competency to try. Held, this decision was wrong, that the defendant could not turn round and object to the jurisdiction of the Munsif, since it was on his opposition that the original application had been rejected-Bromo Moyee vs. Anund Chunder, 22 W. R., 120; but see Aukhil Chunder vs. Moheenee Mohun, 4 C. L. R., 491; Shri Sidheshwar vs. Harihar, I. L. R., 12 Bom., 155. Plaintiff's suit was dismissed by a Munsif as above his jurisdiction. He appealed; the Court of Appeal, reversing the Munsif's decision, directed him to try the suit; he did so and dismissed it, but on appeal, plaintiff obtained a decree. In special appeal defendant again raised the question, but it was ruled that he was not entitled to do so. The Court held "the objection as to jurisdiction cannot be taken at this stage of

the case; the appellant had a right to come up here in special appeal from the order passed on the 14th of June, 1872.......This question of jurisdiction has no bearing upon the merits, and simply refers to the form in which a suit should be brought-Koylash_Chunder vs. Shaih Ashruf, 22 W. R., 101; and see Dattu vs. Kasai, I. L. R., 8 Bom., 535. See JURISDICTION,' infra, and the change introduced by section 11," Act VII of 1887, and note to section 578, post.

Costs. When a suit is dismissed, or the plaint returned, for want of jurisdiction, the defendant is entitled to his costs-Moshingan vs. Mozari, I. L. R., 12 Cal., 271.

Small Cause Court; Munsif's Court.-When a Munsif was vested with powers up to fifty rupees under Act VI of 1871, and there was a Court of Small Causes, under Act XI, 1865, with jurisdiction extending to five hundred rupees, at the same place, a suit of the nature cognizable by Small Cause Courts, if not above fifty rupees in value, must have been brought in the Munsif's Court-Dwarkanath Dutt vs. Bhathu, 22 W. R., 457. So where two Courts with different money limits possess jurisdiction to try the cause, it should be instituted in the Court of the lower limit-Mohanlal vs. Vira, I. L. R., 12 Bom., 169. This rule does not apply to village Munsifs established in Madras under Regulation IV,1816, section 5, to try suits not exceeding ten rupees, and in such cases the Munsifs and Small Cause Courts possess concurrent jurisdiction, and one does not exclude the other-Parasoorama Pillay vs. Ramasawmy, 5 Mad., 45. As to the present law, see sections 16 and 23, Act IX of 1887.

Jurisdiction of Small Cause Courts.-General.-A person claiming damages for personal injury where actual pecuniary damage has resulted, has a right to join in the suit another part of the claim to damages which is not cognizable by a Small Cause Court-Mansing Lalung vs. Theram, 22 W. R., 395; but see as to the present law, section 15, Act IX of 1887, and compare Jiwa Ram vs. Bhola, I. L. R., 10 Alla., 49.

Small Cause Court, Provincial.-Under Act IX of 1887, a Small Cause Court has power to try all suits of a civil nature not excluded by the second schedule to the Act; and it is the nature of the suit as described in the plaint and not the nature of the defence that determines the question of jurisdiction-Bapuji vs. Kuvarji, I. L. R., 15 Bom., 400. A suit for compensation on account of injury to an oil mill will lie in a Provincial Small Cause Court-Banwari Lall vs. The Secretary of State, I. L. R., 17 Cal., 290, so will a suit for damages on account of the use and occupation of land - Makhan Lall vs. Goribullah, I. L. R., 17 Cal., 541, or on account of the forcible cutting and carrying away of grass-Krishna Prosad vs. Maizuddin, I. L. R., 17 Cal., 707; but not a suit for mesne profits- Sriram vs. Kalidas, I. L. R., 18 Cal., 316; or to recover a legacy when there is no allegation that the executors are in possession of sufficient assets to pay or that they had ever assented to the payment Okhoy Coomar vs. Koylash Chunder, I. L. R., 17 Cal., 387.

Presidency Small Cause Court.-The jurisdiction given to this Court unde section 18 of Act XV of 1882 is not affected by 51 Vic., c. 4., section 7.- Watts vs. Blackett' I. L. R., 18 Cal, 144; Wallis vs. Bailey, I. L. R., 18 Cal., 372. It is the nature of the case as laid and not the defence that determines jurisdiction-Bapuji vs. Kuvarji, I. L. R., 15 Bom., 400. As to stating a case, see Ralli Brothers vs. Goculbhai, I. L. R., 15 Bom., 376. Court of Cantonment Magistrate.-See Sundardas vs. Mohandas, I. L. R., 9 Bom., 454.

Court of Requests-Shere Ali vs. Prendergast, I. L. R., 13 Cal., 143.

Revenue Courts-North-West.-Under Act XVIII, 1873, a suit for possession of a holding by a tenant against his landlord should be instituted in the Revenue CourtsMuazzim Ali vs. Sheo Parshad, 7 Alla., 259; Chhiddu vs. Narpat, I. L. R., 8 Alla., 62; and in a suit to eject a tenant holding over, the Civil Courts will not have jurisdiction even if the suit for ejectment is combined with a claim for mesne profits - Ram Autar vs. Talimundi, 7 Alla., 49; but this Act does not preclude the Civil Courts from taking cognizance of a suit to recover possession, on the averment that the plaintiffs are occupancy-ryots, with mesne profits against third persons setting up an adverse titleMata Pershad vs. Janki, 7 Alla., 226; Raghobar Misser vs. Sital, id., 228; nor of a suit to recover possession of sir land on the ground that defendants have taken possession without any right-Ghisa vs. Didari, 7 Alla., 257; nor a claim of one joint owner against anotherBirbal vs. Tika Ram, I. L. R., 4 Alla., 11; though a mere declaration that a tenant is only a tenant-at-will cannot be obtained in any Court-Maharaja of Benares vs. Angan, I. L. R., 7 All., 112; nor will a suit lie to determine the status of persons admittedly tenants-Mahesh Rai vs. Chandar, I. L. R., 13 Alla., 17.

Revenue Courts cannot hear a suit concerning profits of land, arising between the heirs of a lumbardar and his co-sharers-Ahmaduddin vs. Majlis, I. L. R., 5 Alla., 438; nor a suit for rent by assignee of the landlord-Ganga Prasad vs. Chandrawati, I. L. R., 7 Alla., 256; and see Autu Singh vs. Ajudhia, I. L. R., 9 Alla., 249; nor a suit for declaration of right in land as sir land-Kauleshar Panday vs. Girdhari, I. L. R., 7 Alla., 338; and see Sheodisht vs. Rameshar, I. L. R., 7 Alla., 188; Madho Singh