JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by-one Bulaqi Das, who is the respondent here, against Musammat Wahida Khatun, admittedly zamindar, and the prayer of Bulaqi Das is that he may be put in absolute possession over what he terms in the plaint a grove. The plaint is a very cunningly worded document and while it avoids throughout making any mention of the exact tenure, which the plaintiff claims, does in paragraph 3 show that while claiming to be what he calls a grove-holder he has had passed against him a decree for rent on account of the holding payable to Musammat Wahida Khatun. The case is another instance of the mistake which the Civil Courts often make of taking up and deciding cases which are cases over which the Rent Courts have expressly been given jurisdiction. The facts of the case show that this is a case in which a tenant calling himself a grove-holder is seeking in fact to obtain possession of a tenancy against his landlord. It is a case pure and simple for the Revenue Courts and one over which a Civil Court had no jurisdiction. 2. The original tenant of the land in dispute was one Kishen Lal. He apparently planted trees upon the land, which he held as such tenant and the zamindar applied to eject him. After this, on the 3rd of September, 1898, under a decree, which was held against this tenant, the grove was put up for sale and purchased by Medai Lal. On the 12th of December, 1900, Medai and Kishen Lal, sold or professed to sell the same grove to Bulaqi Das, and it is upon foot of this sale that Bulaqi Das has brought the present suit. 3. The lower appellate Court has given Bulaqi Das a decree for possession of the land with the qualification that he will not be proprietor of it, but will have only those rights to the land, which Kishen” Lal had in it. For this decree he gives two reasons. 3. The lower appellate Court has given Bulaqi Das a decree for possession of the land with the qualification that he will not be proprietor of it, but will have only those rights to the land, which Kishen” Lal had in it. For this decree he gives two reasons. The first is that Musammat Wahida Khatun had herself admitted that Kishen Lal, from whom Bulaqi Das derives his title, had a transferable interest in the trees, and the second is that Musammat Wahida Khatun had, by taking money due under a decree for rent from Kishen Lal, virtually admitted that Bulaqi Das was tenant of the land in dispute. The lower appellate Court apparently overlooked what has been laid down in Kausalia v. Gulab Khan,[1899] I.L.R., 21 All., 297. Kishen Lal and Medai Lal had no right which they could transfer and Bulaqi Das therefore could and did acquire no rights whatever in the land or in the grove by his purchase. 4. As regards the receipt of the so-called rent, the receipt shows that what was paid through Bulaqi Das as coming from Kishen Lal, was money due on account of a decree and there is not one word in the receipt about rent. 5. The objection that this suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court was taken in the Court of first instance and as all the materials necessary for its determination are before us, we are able to dispose of the appeal as if the suit had been instituted in the right Court. We accordingly decree this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the Munsif with costs in all Courts.