JUDGMENT Bennet, J. - This is a Letters Patent appeal by a plaintiff against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the suit of the plaintiff lies in the Revenue Court and directing that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif and the two lower Courts granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The suit relates to groves and the question is whether such a suit should lie in the Civil Court or in the Revenue Court. The plaint sets out the relief as follows: That a decree may be passed declaring the title of the plaintiffs to the groves bearing the numbers and boundaries given below, and that it may be declared that the defendants have no right or concern with the same. 3. The numbers of the groves are given according to the khasra. In para. 11 of the plaint it is set out that the plaintiffs came to know that for some years past the defendants have been wrongly entered in the revenue papers by the patwari for the entire grove in dispute. The plaint set out that in an auction-purchase on 21st August 1857, the groves in which the plaintiffs claim the right of a tenant were sold to the ancestors of the defendants and that subsequently the plaintiffs returned the entire sale proceeds to the auction-purchaser and the groves were re-transferred to the ancestor of the plaintiffs, but that in spite of this fact the defendants had at various times made disputes and claimed that they owned a certain share in the groves; that, they were now entered for the whole grove. The jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the plaint. In the present plaint it is clear that the suit is in regard to the four plots hearing certain khasra numbers and we cannot accept the contention of learned Counsel for the plaintiffs that the suit is in regard to the trees on those plots. There is therefore a claim in the plaint for a declaration not only in regard to the trees in the groves, but in regard to the grove-land also. There is therefore a claim in the plaint for a declaration not only in regard to the trees in the groves, but in regard to the grove-land also. There exists no doubt in our minds that such a suit is barred from the cognizance of a Civil Court by Section 230, Agra Tenancy Act, and Section 121 of this Act, provides an ample remedy for the plaintiffs. Accordingly we dismiss, this Letters Patent appeal with costs. 4. As regards a suit for the trees in the groves, we are also of opinion that such a suit would lie in the Revenue Court as the trees are a matter fox which compensation can be given by the Revenue Court if there is wrongful ejectment under the provisions of Section 99, Agra Tenancy Act.