This is a revision application by the plaintiffs against an order of Munsiff Bhadra returning the plaint for presentation to proper court, which was confirmed on appeal by the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar. 2. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners in possession of a Bada situated in the Abadi land of village Deeplana. Gumanaram defendant No. 1 filed a criminal complaint under sec. 447 Indian Penal Code in respect of this Bada but it was dismissed on 23.9.1953. Thereupon he instituted a suit for possession thereof in the revenue court which was finally decreed by the Revenue Board on 14.2.1956. The plaintiffs then instituted the present suit, in the Court of Munsiff Bhadra, substanti-ally for a declaration that the decree of the revenue court about the Bada in favour of the defendants is void, being without jurisdiction, and is not binding on them and for consequential reliefs. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the orders of the courts below are erroneous as neither the Rajasthan Tenancy Act nor the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act contain any provision for instituting a suit of this nature. 3. The learned Munsiff based his order on the ground that Shri Kalyan Singh Tehsilder, who was examined by the plaintiffs on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, stated that the land formed part of Khasra No. 106. The learned Munsiff has also referred to sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. That section only provides for a suit for injunction against wrongful ejectment by a tenant. The learned counsel for the respondents was unable to point out any provision in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for bringing a suit of the nature instituted by the plaintiffs, namely, one for a declaration that a particular judgment of the revenue court is void against the plaintiff. It follows that a suit like the present one can only be tried by the civil court. 4. The learned Munsiff has not framed proper issue. The court is first called upon to determine whether the land in suit was not agricultural land when the defendant instituted a suit about it in the revenue court. Agricultural land is not defined in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, but it is defined in sec. 4. The learned Munsiff has not framed proper issue. The court is first called upon to determine whether the land in suit was not agricultural land when the defendant instituted a suit about it in the revenue court. Agricultural land is not defined in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, but it is defined in sec. 5(24) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as follows :— "5(24) "Land" shall mean land which is let or held for agricultural purposes or for purposes sub-servient thereto or as grove land or for pasturage, including land occupied by house or enclosures situated on a holding, or land covered with water which may be used for the purpose of irrigation or growing singhara or other similar produce but excluding abadi land; it shall include benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth." 5. J If the land in the suit was not agricultural land on the date of the institution of the revenue suit then the revenue court had no jurisdiction to try it. If however, it was agricultural land then the revenue court had exclusive jurisdiction to try the suit for possession and decree it. If the court finds that the decree of the revenue court is without jurisdiction it shall determine whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land in suit and are entitled to the further relief claimed by them, namely, that of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. 6. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order returning the plaint for presentation to the revenue court and remand the suit to the Court of Munsiff Bhadra for decision in accordance with law after framing the following additional issue:– "Was the land in suit not agricultural land on the date on which the revenue suit was instituted?" 7. Fresh opportunity should be given to the parties to adduce further evidence on the above issue. The costs incurred by the parties so far shall abide the final result of the suit.