JUDGMENT : 1. This and the connected Appeal No. 274 of 1914 arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Somaroo Rai for possession of nine plots of land under the following circumstances. The land in dispute lies in the zemindari of Lachhmi Narain, who granted him a lease of the said plots for a term of 16 years on the 11th of January, 1904. On February, 12th, 1906, the same Lachhmi Narain granted a perpetual lease to the appellant, Balbhaddar Chaube, in respect of the said lands and other property and he got mutation of names effected in favour of Balbhaddar. Subsequently in 1908 he sold his zemindari to the other defendants. Balbhaddar brought a suit in the Revenue Court against the present plaintiff for arrears of rent in respect of three out of the disputed plots, namely, Nos. 116, 165 and 2939, on the allegation that the plaintiff was his sub-tenant. He obtained a decree on the 13th of January, 1913. It is stated in the plaint that suits were brought for arrears of rent in respect of some of the other plots against shikmi tenants holding those plots and decrees were obtained against them. All this, according to the allegations in the plaint, took place before 1909. The plaintiff states that these acts amounted to his dispossession and he accordingly brought the present suit for recovery of possession and damages in the Civil Court. The defendants to the suit are Balbhaddar, the subsequent lessee, Lachhmi Narain, the former zemindar, and the purchasers of the zemindari from Lachhmi Narain. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim in respect of the three plots Nos. 116, 165 and 2939 and decreed it in regard to the remaining plots. The claim for damages was dismissed. The plaintiff filed an appeal as regards the portion of the claim dismissed and Balbhaddar appealed against that portion of the decree which decreed the claim in respect of the plots other than the three plots mentioned above. The learned Judge allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal preferred by Balbhaddar; so that it decreed the plaintiff's claim for possession of all the nine plots. The defendant Balbhaddar has preferred these appeals. As regards the three plots Nos. The learned Judge allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal preferred by Balbhaddar; so that it decreed the plaintiff's claim for possession of all the nine plots. The defendant Balbhaddar has preferred these appeals. As regards the three plots Nos. 116, 165 and 2939, the contention put forward on his behalf is that the decision of the Revenue Court in the suit for arrears of rent operates as res judicata between the appellant, Balbhaddar, and the plaintiff, Somaroo. This contention has, in my opinion, been rightly disallowed by the Court below. So far as these plots are concerned, the claim is between rival claimants to the tenancy and such a claim could only be brought in the Civil Court and not in the Revenue Court. This has been field in several cases to which I need not refer. The subsequent suit now brought could not be brought in a Court of Revenue and consequently the decision of that Court in the previous suit was not the decision of a Court competent to try the subsequent suit. As regards the remaining plots, the main contention is that the plaintiff has lost his title to the tenancy created in his favour under the lease granted to him on the 11th of January, 1904 by reason of lapse of time. It is urged that the plaintiff was dispossessed from these plots so far back as 1906 and as he did not bring a suit to recover possession as against his landlord and the lessee from the landlord under Section 79 of the Tenancy Act within six months from the date of his dispossession, his right to the tenancy no longer subsists. It was admitted by the Pleader for the plaintiff in the Court of first instance in a statement recorded on the 4th of June, 1913 that the three plots Nos. 116, 165 and 2939 were in the actual cultivation of the plaintiff and that the remaining plots were cultivated by sub-tenants. It was stated that the plaintiff received rent from these tenants for two years, i.e., from 1904 to 1906, and that since the year 1906 the rent payable by the sub-tenants holding the six plots has been realized by the appellant Balbhaddar. It was stated that the plaintiff received rent from these tenants for two years, i.e., from 1904 to 1906, and that since the year 1906 the rent payable by the sub-tenants holding the six plots has been realized by the appellant Balbhaddar. It is contended, as I have said above, that the realization of rent by Balbhaddar amounted to a dispossession by the land-holder and as this took place long before the institution of the present suit, the plaintiff's right has become extinguished. 2. This contention is supported by the ruling of this Court in Ram Lal v. Chunni Lal, (1904) 27 All. 372 : 2 A.L.J. 69 : 1901 A.W.N. 281.. In that case the learned Judge who decided it held as follows:— “When a landholder lets land in the occupation of a tenant to a third party and that third party, acting under the landholders' authority, takes possession of the land, then in my opinion the tenant must be deemed to have been ousted by the land-holder, and his remedy is a suit under S. 79 of Act II of 1901, the person claiming through the land-holder being joined as a defendant to the suit under the provisions of S. 81 of the Act. Such a suit-must be brought within six months of the date of dispossession.” This view appears to have been accepted by Mr. Justice Chamier in a case reported in 7 Indian Cases, page 486 [Sokhai v. Ram Pershad, (1910) 7 I.C. 486.. Second Appeal No. 1139 of 1909, decided on July 11th, 1910]. The fact that on the plaintiff's own showing the rent payable by the tenants occupying the plots mentioned above has been realized by Balbhaddar since the year 1906 by virtue of the lease granted to him by the zemindar, shows that the plaintiff was dispossessed so far back as 1906 and this dispossession must be deemed to be a dispossession by the zemindar through his tenant. It appears from the provisions of Section 81 of the Tenancy Act that when a tenant is dispossessed by a person claiming through the zemindar, the tenant's remedy is a suit, under the Tenancy Act for recovery of possession against the zemindar and the person claiming through him. It appears from the provisions of Section 81 of the Tenancy Act that when a tenant is dispossessed by a person claiming through the zemindar, the tenant's remedy is a suit, under the Tenancy Act for recovery of possession against the zemindar and the person claiming through him. Therefore the plaintiff's right to recover possession of the six plots having accrued long prior to six months antecedent to the date of the suit, the right to bring such a suit for recovery of possession has become time-barred. This circumstance not only barred his remedy but extinguished his right, as held in Dalip Rai v. Deohi Rai, (1899) 21 All. 204 : (1899) A.W.N. 36.. That the dispossession of the plaintiff was a dispossession by the zemindar is also manifest from the fact that in the plaint itself it is stated that the zemindar brought suits for rent against some of the tenants holding the plots in question and obtained decrees and that the plaintiff himself regarded this as amounting to his dispossession. Furthermore, he has claimed relief not only against Balbhaddar but also against the zemindars, defendants. The plaintiff has thus ceased to have any right to the six plots other than the throe plots numbered 116, 165 and 2939. The claim as regards those three plots has been rightly decreed and this appeal must fail. The connected appeal must prevail. I accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.