JUDGMENT Bennet, Ag. C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit which he brought for the recovery of certain sums of money on account of revenue, cesses and malikana and in which his claim with regard to the malikana has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that the claim was not cognizable by the Revenue Court. The suit was brought in the Court of the Assistant Collector who decreed it in respect of the amounts claimed for revenue and cesses and dismissed it in respect of the malikana. This second appeal is confined to the claim for malikana. 2. The plaintiff is the superior proprietor and the defendants are inferior proprietors in the village Garhi Bhupal in the District of Agra, and by an order of the Settlement Officer dated 2nd April 1928, the plaintiff is entitled to a sum equal to 20 per cent of the assets accepted at the settlement as malikana. This is what the plaintiff sued for in respect of the Rabi 1336 F. The Courts below have held that this part of his claim was not cognizable by the Revenue Court, and have relied on a ruling of a learned single Judge of this Court in (1908) AWN 209 Manohar Lal v. Kashi Ram, (1908) AWN 209. The judgment in that case refers to Sec. 162, Agra Tenancy Act, 2 of 1901, and lays down that the malikana claimed in that case does not come within the category of revenue or rent. We are unable to agree with the decision of the learned Judge in that case that a claim like the one which we have before us is cognizable by the Civil Court. The attention of the learned Judge does not seem to have been invited to the various Sections of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 3 of 1901, and of the Agra Tenancy Act. The attention of the learned Judge does not seem to have been invited to the various Sections of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 3 of 1901, and of the Agra Tenancy Act. S. 75, Land Revenue Act, provides that in any mahal whenever several persons possess separate heritable and transferable proprietary interests, such interests being of different kinds, the Settlement Officer shall determine which of such persons shall be admitted to engage for the payment of the revenue, due provision being made for securing the rights of the others ; and the manner and the proportion in which the net profits of the mahal shall be allotted to the several persons possessing separate interests as aforesaid. S. 76 (l) of the Act provides: It in any mahal coming under the provisions of S. 75, the separate properties bear to each other the relation of superior and the inferior, and settlement be made with the party possessing the superior right, the Settlement Officer may make, on behalf of the superior proprietor, a sub-settlement with the inferior proprietor by which such inferior shall be bound to pay to the superior an amount equal to the Government demand in respect of the mahal, together with the share of the profits thereof, allotted to the superior proprietor under S. 75. 3. Thus the Settlement Officer when he passed the order of 2nd April 1928, was acting in accordance with these provisions of the Land Revenue Act. S. 233 provides: No person shall institute any suit or other proceeding in the Civil Court with respect to any of the following matters : ......(g) any matters provided for in Ss. 75 to 83 (both inclusive). 4. It seems to us clear therefore that under this provision of the Land Revenue Act no suit could be brought by the plaintiff in the Civil Court with regard to the malikana payable to him. Further S. 224, Agra Tenancy Act, 3 of 1926, which corresponds to Sec. 162 of the Act of 1901, lays down that a taluqdar or other superior proprietor may sue for arrears of revenue or rent due to him as such. We are of opinion that the sum of money which the plaintiff was claiming was rent due to him as such. We are of opinion that the sum of money which the plaintiff was claiming was rent due to him as such. As we have pointed out above, under Sec. 75, Land Revenue Act, the Settlement Officer had to determine the manner and proportion in which the net profits of the mahal were to be allotted to the several persons mentioned in the Section. Sec. 76, Land Revenue Act, authorized the Settlement Officer to make a sub-settlement with the inferior proprietor by which such inferior proprietor was to be bound to pay to the superior proprietor an amount equal to the Government demand in respect of the mahal, together with the share of the profits thereof, allotted to the superior proprietor under Sec. 75. In this case the plaintiff was admitted to engage for the payment of the revenue, and the Settlement Officer by his order of 2nd April 1928 fixed the share of the profits payable by the inferior proprietor to the superior proprietor at 20 per cent, of the assets accepted at the settlement. We consider that by this order he made the sub-settlement contemplated by Sec. 76, Land Revenue Act. That being so, the 20 per cent, of the profits payable by the inferior proprietor to the superior proprietor represent the latter's share of the rent payable by the tenants to the land holder, and so they come within the words "rent due to him as such". Now a suit of the nature provided for in S. 224, Agra Tenancy Act, is to be found in Sch. 4 of that Act, Group A, at serial No. 13. That being so, the provisions of Sec. 230, Agra Tenancy Act, become applicable, and any suit in respect of the malikana would not be cognizable by the Civil Court. 5. We may further point out that the learned Additional District Judge failed to take into consideration the provisions of S. 269, Agra Tenancy Act. If the suit had been filed in the Civil Court even then the appeal would have lain to the learned District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge therefore was not justified in affirming the dismissal of this part of the claim by the learned Assistant Collector. If the suit had been filed in the Civil Court even then the appeal would have lain to the learned District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge therefore was not justified in affirming the dismissal of this part of the claim by the learned Assistant Collector. The Section lays down that if all the materials necessary for the determination of the suit are before the Appellate Court, it shall dispose of the appeal as if the suit had beta instituted in the right Court, and if such materials are not before it, it can remand the case or frame and refer issues for trial or may require additional evidence to be taken. The learned Additional District Judge thus was wrong in upholding the dismissal of this part of the claim and in not taking action in accordance with the provisions of the Section. Accordingly, we set aside that part of the decree of the Court below by which the claim of the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of malikana with interest has been dismissed and remand the case to the trial Court through the lower Appellate Court for determination of the amount, if any, payable by each of the defendants to the plaintiff on account of malikana. The trial Court shall pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the recovery of the amount which is found by it payable to the plaintiff by the defendants. The plaintiff-appellant will have the costs which he has hitherto incurred in all the Courts. The defendants shall bear their own costs throughout. The decrees of the Courts below in regard to costs are modified. The plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the court-fee paid by him on the memorandum of appeal in this Court as well as in the lower Appellate Court. 6. The defendants-respondents have filed cross-objections with regard to pendente lite interest which the lower Appellate Court allowed to the plaintiff modifying the decree of the trial Court on that point. The trial Court had deprived the plaintiff of interest pendente lite on the sole ground that it was wrong on the part of the plaintiff to have filed his suit for recovery of malikana with interest in the Revenue Court. The trial Court had deprived the plaintiff of interest pendente lite on the sole ground that it was wrong on the part of the plaintiff to have filed his suit for recovery of malikana with interest in the Revenue Court. In addition to the reason given by the learned Additional District Judge for differing from the trial Court on this point, there is the further point that we have held that the plaintiff was right in filing a suit claiming malikana with interest in the Revenue Court. There is no force in the cross-objections and we dismiss them with costs.