JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - This is a plaintiffs second appeal. The suit was for injunction with regard to agricultural plot No. 730. The trial court framed a number of issues including one about jurisdiction. On this issue it held that the relief claimed in essence was one of declaration of Bhumidhari rights and, therefore, the civil court had no jurisdiction. It also recorded findings on other issues regarding merits of the case against the plaintiff and proceeded to dismiss the suit with costs. The lower appellate court confirmed this decree. As regards jurisdiction issue it specifically confirmed the finding of the trial court and observed that the suit was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 2. The only point urged in second appeal is that after the finding that the civil court had no jurisdiction the suit should not have been dismissed but the plaint should have been returned for presentation to the proper court. On the other hand the respondents have strongly contended that the appellant having himself filed the suit in civil court is not entitled to raise this objection that on the findings of the court, the proper order is one of dismissal and that in any event after the amendment of Section 331 U. P. Act I of 1951 and introduction of Sub-section (1-A) by U. P. Act IV of 1969. the lower appellate court erred in finding that the civil court had no jurisdiction because an objection about jurisdiction can after the introduction of Section 331 (1-A) be permitted only if there has been a failure of justice which is not at all the position in the case at hand. 3. There is no doubt that ordinarily where the finding is that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, the plaint is returned for presentation to the proper court under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10, C. P. C. Even where the court as a matter of caution, records findings on issues touching merits of the controversy in addition to the issue of jurisdiction, the order has to be of return of plaint because the other findings in such a case have no legal effect. These arc recorded only for facilitating the higher courts and avoidance of a remand in case they come to a different conclusion on the question of jurisdiction. These arc recorded only for facilitating the higher courts and avoidance of a remand in case they come to a different conclusion on the question of jurisdiction. This is the principle set out in a host of decisions including Athamanatha Swami v. Gopala Swami ( AIR 1965 SC 338 ). 4. But in Mst. Ananti v. Chhannu (AIR 1930 All 193), a Full Bench of this Court held that the plaint was to be returnable only where the finding about want of jurisdiction was based on the plaint allegations themselves. But where it was arrived at after contest and on the true state of facts alleged and established by the defendant, the suit should be dismissed in its entirety. That was also a case where the question was whether the civil or revenue court had jurisdiction. This was what their Lordships said: "The plaintiff chooses his forum and files his suit. If he establishes the correctness of his facts, he will get his relief from the forum chosen. If he framed his suit in a manner not warranted by the facts, and goes for his relief to a Court which cannot grant him relief, on the true facts, he will have his suit dismissed. Then there will be no question of returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, for the plaint, as framed, would not justify the other kind of Court to grant him the relief. But we are told that although the plaintiff has chosen his forum rightly, the defendant, if he so wishes, may, merely by saying something in his defence - something the correctness of which he need not take the trouble to establish, oust the jurisdiction of the Court and compel the plaintiff to go to another Court. Where the plaintiff chooses his forum and the defendant denies the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case two questions arise, viz.: 1. Whether, on the allegations made in the plaint, the suit is cognizable by the Court? and 2. Whether, on the true state of facts, on facts alleged and established by the defendant, the suit should be tried by the Court? Where it is found that, on the allegations made in the plaint, the suit is cognizable by the Court, it will have to proceed to find whether the facts alleged in the plaint are established or not. Whether, on the true state of facts, on facts alleged and established by the defendant, the suit should be tried by the Court? Where it is found that, on the allegations made in the plaint, the suit is cognizable by the Court, it will have to proceed to find whether the facts alleged in the plaint are established or not. If it is found, on a trial on the merits so far as this issue of jurisdiction goes, that the facts alleged by the plaintiff are not true and the facts alleged by the defendant are true, and that the case is not cognizable by the Court, there will be two kinds of orders to be passed. If the jurisdiction is only one relating to territorial limits or pecuniary limits, the plaint will be ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. If, on the other hand, it is found that having regard to the nature of the suit, it is not cognizable by the class of the Court to which the Court belongs, the plaintiffs suit will have to he dismissed in its entirety. The reason will be that on the unamended plaint the' revenue Court would have no jurisdiction to hear this suit. Of course, if the Court allows the plaintiff even at the late stage of the case so as to convert the suit into one against a person claiming as a landholder or through a landholder, the plaint can be returned for presentation to the revenue Court." This decision was followed in a number of other cases. In Khushnud Husain v. janki Prasad (AIR 1931 All 663), the Full Bench case was referred to and it was observed that: "Once the plaint was entertained the plaintiffs had to be pinned down to the-allegations in their plaint and if those allegations were not proved the suit would, have to be dismissed." Both these cases were followed in Dwarika v. Jwala Singh (1958 Rev Dec 70) (All) by his Lordship Desai, J. who clearly brought out the position that only if the plaint in the existing form can be presented before a revenue Court the order of return was: a proper order. But if this was not so, proper order was one of dismissal. But if this was not so, proper order was one of dismissal. In Rasooli Ahmad v. Beni Prasad (1965 Rev Dec 80) (All) Gangeshwar Prasad, J. reiterated this position and the order of dismissal passed, by the courts below was upheld. 5. It is proper to remark that even an, order of dismissal after the finding of want of jurisdiction would enable the plaintiff to file another suit of course with fresh court fee with proper allegations in the revenue Court and benefit of Section 14 Limitation Act will also be available to him regarding the time spent in civil court if the conditions prescribed in the section are fulfilled. The same is the position with regard to a plaint returned for presentation to proper court. Any other finding other than one required for deciding the question of jurisdiction recorded by the court would also be without effect if a finding of want of jurisdiction is there.. It is also worthwhile re-emphasising that: as pointed out in Full Bench observations even in a case where the plaintiff after contest loses on the question of jurisdiction it is open to him to seek suitable amendments in the plaint which would make the plaint returnable. If such amendments are allowed the Court would naturally be obliged to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. In the cases cited by the learned counsel, the special situation discussed above did not arise for consideration and, therefore, they are not helpful to the appellant. In the instant case which clearly is one where the plaintiff has lost on the question of jurisdiction after contest and the plaint as it stands is not cognisable by the revenue Court. The order of dismissal of the suit is, therefore, proper. 6-7. On the other two points the pleas raised on behalf of the respondents can he briefly disposed of. There is no question of appellant being estopped from raising the objection of jurisdiction because the appellant is not raising that objection. His only contention is that on the findings of the lower courts, the order should be of return of plaint and not of dismissal. There can be no estoppel against the contention that the final order should be the due order that follows from the findings. 8. Again amended Section 331 (1-A) Act 1 of 1951 can be of no help for the same reason. There can be no estoppel against the contention that the final order should be the due order that follows from the findings. 8. Again amended Section 331 (1-A) Act 1 of 1951 can be of no help for the same reason. The appellant is not seeking to raise the plea of jurisdiction in this Court. As regards the lower appellate court also Section 331 (1-A) was irrelevant "because the trial court itself had found against the plaintiff on the point of jurisdiction per its judgment, dated 28-2-70 and the lower appellate court only .affirmed this finding. 9. On the above discussions, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Parties however, left to bear their own costs Court.