JUDGMENT Kaul, J. - This is an application for revision made u/s 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act against an order of the Munsif South, Sultanpur, exercising Small Cause Court jurisdiction by which he directed the applicant's plaint to be re- turned for presentation to the proper Court. 2. The facts material for the purposes of this application are briefly these : The applicant Nimar Singh instituted a suit in the Small Cause Court at Sultanpur for recovery of Rs. 45 as damages against the opposite party on the allegation that they wrongfully harvested the wheat crop which he had grown on plot No. 294 in village Tilokpur, Tahsil Amethi, Sultanpur district. He claimed to be in possession of the said land as- a sub-mortgagee from the original mortgagee, Sital Din Sarawak. Of the six defendants Bhaggu, defendant No. 6, did not appear at the trial and the case proceeded ex parte against him. Defendants 4 and 5 denied having cut any crops. The chief contesting defendants Were defendants Nos. ] to 3. Among other pleas it was urged on their behalf that the allegations made in the plaint amounted to plaintiff's dispossession from the land in question and so the suit was cognizable by a Revenue Court. It was found by the Court below on evidence led by the parties that the sub-mortgage relied on by Nimar Singh was proved and it was not proved that the original mort- gage had been redeemed. It was further held that the wheat crop was sown by the plaintiff and was wrongly harvested by the contesting defendants. The value of the crop was assessed at Rs. 45. Thus it will be seen that all the main facts in the case were found in favour of the plaintiff-applicant. , It was held, however, by the learned Munsif that the action of the defendants in harvesting the plaintiff's crop and then sowing another crop on that land in the next season amounted to dispossession of Nimar Singh from the land and so the plaintiff should have brought a suit u/s 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. , It was held, however, by the learned Munsif that the action of the defendants in harvesting the plaintiff's crop and then sowing another crop on that land in the next season amounted to dispossession of Nimar Singh from the land and so the plaintiff should have brought a suit u/s 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. In view of the provisions of Section 242 and Schedule IV of the Tenancy Act he directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court, The learned Munsif added that but for the fact that the suit was exclusively within the cognizance of the Revenue Court he would have granted the plaintiff a decree for the sum claimed. The present application has been made against the order returning the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the Munsif in the Court below was in error in holding that the suit brought by Nimar Singh was exclusively within the cognizance of the Revenue Court. This, as has already been stated, was a simple suit for damages and no more.' No question of recovery of possession of land was raised on the plaint allegations, nor is there anything on the record to show that the plaintiff considered himself to be dispossessed of the land. Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act has no application to a case of the nature instituted by Nimar Singh for recovery of damages for crops wrongfully harvested by the defendants. It is primarily a section authorising a suit against a person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law and without the consent of the person entitled to admit him as tenant. The suit contemplated by that section is one in ejectment. It further permits a claim for damages in respect of dispossession from land or wrongful retention of possession thereof by a person not entitled thereto but cannot reply to damages in respect of crops grown upon the land. This is apart from the4woiding of the section, clear from the fact that the amount of damages is limited to four times the annual rental value calculated in accordance with the sanctioned rates applicable j to hereditary tenants. This is apart from the4woiding of the section, clear from the fact that the amount of damages is limited to four times the annual rental value calculated in accordance with the sanctioned rates applicable j to hereditary tenants. Obviously it could not be intended that if a crop sown by some persons is wrongfully harvested by another, the aggrieved person should get no more than four times the annual rental value of the land in respect of his crop. I am satisfied therefore that Section 180 could not properly apply to the suit brought by Nimar Singh.* 4. u/s 242 of, the U. P. Tenancy Act suits and applications of the nature specified in the Fourth Schedule can be heard only by a Revenue Court. There is another class of suits whereof cognizance cannot be taken by any except a Revenue Court under that section. This class is specified in the last part of Section 242. It refers to any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which relief could be obtained by means of a suit or application referred to in the earlier part of the section. Can Nimar Singh's suit be said to fall under this category ? Possibly the learned Munsif had the entry at serial No. 18 of Group B of the Fourth Schedule in his mind when he passed the order for return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. As already pointed out the damages referred to in this entry are in respect of the, land from which a defendant is to be ejected and not in respect of the crops which he may have wrongfully harvested. 5. In view of the conclusions arrived at above the application is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside The learned Munsif stated in his judgment that if the suit had not been exclusively cognizable by a Revenue .Court he would have granted the plaintiff a decree for Ks. 45 against the defendants. He has found that it was only defendants I to 3 who had cut the crops. Accordingly it is unnecessary to send back the case to the Court below. A decree for Rs. 45 and costs in both the Courts is passed in favour of the applicant, Nimar Singh, against the defendants opposite-parties Nos. 1 to-3. Lallu, Ram Dayal Singh and Badiu Singh.