ORDER S.N. Katju, J. - These are five connected appeals arising out of five suits for possession of the land in suit, demolition of the constructions standing thereon and for damages. 2. The suits were instituted in the civil court. One of the contentions raised by the Defendants was that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The trial court dismissed the suits. But on appeal the court below expressed the view that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suits and the plaints, in the suits were ordered to be returned to the Plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court. 3. The question whether in such cases the revenue court or the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits has not been free from difficulty. u/s 230 of UP Act III of 1926 only those suits came within the purview of the section in which "adequate relief could be obtained" from the revenue court. Subsequently the word "adequate" was deleted from the section and also from the explanation to the section. Again, the word "any" was added before the word "relief" in the section by Section 22 of the UP Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. X of 1947. Therefore, as the section stood the civil court could not take cognizance of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. 4. The matter was considered in Syed Mohd. Zahir Hasan v. Dulare (l) (1953 AWR 414). Recently the question again came up for consideration in First Appeal From Order No. 378 of 1958: (Ram Tarak v. Ram Samujh) (2) decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.7.1963 and in Baiju v. Shambhu Saran (3) (1963 AWR 781). In the aforesaid case it was observed: The essential question that arises upon the provisions of Section 242 (of UP Tenancy Act, 1139) is whether the Plaintiff had any cause of action on which he could obtain any relief from a revenue court (if he had, he cannot approach a civil court), and not whether on the particular cause of action selected by him he could get any relief from a revenue court. 5. 5. In the present cases the Plaintiffs came to the court on the allegation that they were Sirdars of the plots in dispute and that the Defendants had encroached upon the aforesaid plots and had raised certain mundiya and thatched houses over it without any authority and in consequence of the aforesaid encroachments made by the Defendants the Plaintiffs had suffered loss. It is obvious that the cause of action for the suits was the wrongful dispossession of the Plaintiffs from the land in suit and the consequential loss that had been caused to them. Such a suit would come u/s 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act and Schedule II item 24. A suit for ejectment of persons occupying land without title and damages would lie u/s 209 of the aforesaid Act. It is thus obvious that the revenue court could give relief to the Plaintiffs both for dispossessing the Defendants as also for damages to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled to. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the Plaintiffs had also asked for demolition of the aforesaid constructions made by the Defendants and relief for demolition could not be given u/s 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The Plaintiffs could undoubtedly get relief for possession and damages from the revenue court. If the Defendants are dispossessed, then they could not hold the aforesaid constructions made by them and they would have to vacate the land. It is, therefore, not necessary for the Plaintiffs to ask for any relief for demolition from the revenue court. In any case, on the aforesaid cause of action, the Plaintiffs could ask for the relief for possession and damages. Therefore, the suits are cognizable only by the revenue court. I agree with the view of the court below that the plaints in the cases should be ordered to be returned to the Plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court. 6. The appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs.