JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J. - This is the defendants second appeal against the decree and judgment dated 10th May 1968 of Temp. Civil and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, affirming the decree of the trial court. 2. This is a suit for possession over the land, after removal of the disputed well with Jagat, Paudar, Mandai, Charni, Nand and bamboo clumps marked pa, ya, Ra, La, Va, Ta, Tha, Bha, Va, situate in plot no. 849 of village Kharawan, as shown in the plaint map. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, respondents on the allegations that they are the bhumidhars of plot no. 849. Sheo Baton, father of the defendant had constructed the bouse within osara and nad in a portion of plot no. 849. Plaintiffs filed a civil suit No. 187 of 1946 for the removal of osara and nad and for possession in the Court of Munsif, Varanasi. The present defendant was also a party in that suit along with his father. The suit was decreed and the decree was put in execution. However, due to intervention of some of the respectful persons, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and accordingly a portion of the land in plot no. 849 was released in favour of the defendants father. The rest of the land of plot no. 849 towards the east of the verandah was, however, left in the possession of the plaintiffs. The present defendant made a well in the year 1966 and three years thereafter, made a jagat. He has also made Mandai and Charani and has also planted bamboo dumps. The defendant has made this disputed construction over an area of three biswa without the consent of the plaintiffs and be is not ready to remove the same and the bamboo clumps. Hence, the suit is filed. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant no. 1 denying the plaintiffs title as bhumidhar over the disputed land. According to the defendant, the land in dispute was never cultivated. The defendant has also denied to have entered into any compromise in the execution case as has been alleged in the plaint. The defendant claims that he obtained the permission of the zamindar for using the portion of this land. The well was kaccha and it was made pucca in the year 1955 and the jagat was also made in that year. The defendant claims that he obtained the permission of the zamindar for using the portion of this land. The well was kaccha and it was made pucca in the year 1955 and the jagat was also made in that year. Mandai, Charm were made 12 years ago. Therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. It was further alleged that the land in dispute is not agricultural land and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has also been, denied. 5. The suit was decreed by the learned Addl. Munsif for possession over the land in dispute as specified by letters ABCD EFGH K in the map of Amin by removal of the well etc. with jagat and pauda, cattle troughs, bamboo clumps tree etc. The defendant preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial court, which was dismissed by the lower appellate court. The defendant-appellant has challenged the orders of the courts below in this appeal before this court. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiffs suit was for possession in respect of bhumidhari land. Therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that this is a suit for demolition and for removal of constructions, which is outside the jurisdiction of the revenue court. Therefore, the Civil Court alone has the jurisdiction to try the suit. 8. It is no bodys case that the land-in-dispute is being used for agricultural purposes at present. The defendant has made various constructions and has planted bamboo clumps. The plaintiff has filed the suit for demolition and possession. Mere decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff will not serve the purpose unless there is also a decree for demolition and removal of the unauthorised constructions. The revenue court has only jurisdiction to decree the suit for possession if any person has taken unauthorised possession over bhumidhari land. But, when the unauthorised constructions have been raised by the defendant over the bhumidhari land, that requires demolition of those unauthorised constructions before the plaintiff is put in actual possession. Such type of relief can be granted only by Civil Court. In this way, the courts have rightly held that the suit is cognisable by the Civil Court. But, when the unauthorised constructions have been raised by the defendant over the bhumidhari land, that requires demolition of those unauthorised constructions before the plaintiff is put in actual possession. Such type of relief can be granted only by Civil Court. In this way, the courts have rightly held that the suit is cognisable by the Civil Court. The other findings recorded by the courts below regarding the title of the plaintiff and unauthorised constructions made by the defendant have not been challenged before this court. The appeal has got no force, which is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.