JUDGMENT : GRIFFIN, J. The defendants applied for partition, in the Revenue Court, of a certain village. There was a bazar standing on a part of the village land. The plaintiffs filed objections in the Revenue Court to the effect that this bazar was their exclusive property. By an order of the Revenue Court they were referred to the Civil Court to obtain a declaration to this effect. Thereupon a suit was brought out of which this appeal has arisen in which they asked for the following reliefs namely, that a declaratory decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of bazar, Gulzarganj, situate in Mauza Raiya Pargana Mariahu, district Jaunpur and that the defendants had no right to the said bazar. At the hearing of the case the pleader who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs made a statement to explain what the plaintiffs intended in asking for a declaration that the defendants had no right in the said bazar. The statement shows what the plaintiffs really meant was that though the bazar formed a portion of the village, the plaintiffs had been in exclusive possession of it for over twelve years and that a declaratory decree be passed accordingly, so that at the time of partition they may claim to have this bazar in their share and the defendants may get compensation for this and other lands. The court of the first instance held that the plaintiffs and their ancestors had been in exclusive possession of the bazar. That court observes in its judgment “The plaintiffs do not claim adverse title to that of the defendants in respect of this bazar, nor do they want it to be excluded from the land belonging to the proprietary body of the village. What they want to be declared is that they are in possession of it like other property.” The decree passed by the court of first instance was to the following effect. “That the plaintiffs” claim for declaration that they and not the defendants are in possession of bazar Gulzarganj in Mauza Raiya Pargana Mariah District Jaunpur, though both the parties have proprietary right in the land occupied by the bazar be decreed.” The defendants appealed and in their appeal they challenged the findings of the court of first instance on issues of fact. The court below has confirmed the findings of the court of first instance and the decree passed by it. Two grounds are taken in second appeal to this Court but they are not seriously pressed. The real ground, which the learned Vakil, on behalf of the appellant, really presses, is that the courts below should not have, in view of the amended relief claimed by the plaintiffs, given any decree in favour of the plaintiffs' suit at all. We have been referred to the provisions of section 233(k) of the land Revenue Act, which bars the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in all matters relating to partition of mahals except as provided in sections 111 and 112 of the same Act. Section 111 provides that where any objection is made by a recorded cosharer involving a question of proprietary title that question may by order of the Revenue Court be referred to the Civil Court for determination. In the plaint as presented to the court of first instance the question of proprietary title to the bazar was clearly raised. In the course of the trial, however, it transpired that all that the plaintiffs really asked for was a decree declaring that the bazar was in their exclusive possession, A suit for a declaration of this nature is not a suit which could be brought in a Civil Court, having regard to the provisions of sections 111 and 233(k) referred to above; and the courts below, if their attention had been drawn to these provisions, would, no doubt, have dismissed the suit. A Revenue Court is not concerned with the partition of buildings. We express no opinion as to the ownership of the buildings comprised in the bazar. As the relief eventually claimed raised no question of proprietary title the suit is not one which could be brought under the provisions of section 111 of the Land Revenue Act. We must therefore allow this appeal set aside the decrees of the courts below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit. As this point was not raised in the courts below we do not allow the defendants appellants their costs. The parties will bear their own costs in the court below.