JUDGMENT - Deshpande D.B. J.-This second appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Osmanabad at Latur, by reversing the decision of trial court, and it arises out of the following facts. 2. The defendants, who are the appellants before me, were admittedly the owners of Survey No. 15 situated at village Barhanpur in Ausa tahsil of Osmanabad district. One Sadhu was the protected tenant of this land and under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act), this Sadhu was declared to be the owner of 7 acres 20 gunthas out of this land. Necessary certificate of ownership was issued in the name of this Sadhu on 31st October 1972 by the authority competent to issue the same. This Sadhu died on 26th July 1971, leaving behind him his son Babu. Babu filed a suit against the defendants for possession, contending that they dispossessed him. Babu died during the pendency of the suit and the present plaintiffs, i. e. the respondents before me, are his heirs and legal representatives. 3. The defendants resisted plaintiffs' claim. They denied that Sadhu was a tenant and they asserted that Sadhu was a mortgagee in possession. According to them, Sadhu was shown as a tenant by mistake. They challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court on the ground that Sadhu should have taken action under the Tenancy Act for obtaining the possession. 4. Issues were framed and evidence was led. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs proved that Sadhu was declared owner of the suit land under section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. He held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief of possession. Consequently he dismissed plaintiffs' suit, but directed the parties to bear their own costs. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the heirs and legal representatives of Babu preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1977 in the Court of the Assistant Judge at Latur, and this appeal was heard by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Osmanabad at Latur. Consequently he dismissed plaintiffs' suit, but directed the parties to bear their own costs. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the heirs and legal representatives of Babu preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1977 in the Court of the Assistant Judge at Latur, and this appeal was heard by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Osmanabad at Latur. The learned Assistant Judge held that the civil court had jurisdiction to try this suit and he further held that the question of Sadhu being a mortgagee did not at all arise for consideration and so he reversed the decision of the trial court and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for possession of 7 acres 20 gunthas and for ancillary reliefs. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed this second appeal. 6. The only question is about jurisdiction of the civil court to grant reliefs in this case, but it is not disputed that Sadhu was declared to be the owner of 7 acres 20 gunthas under section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Hence, on and from that date possession of Sadhu and all the persons claiming through him was not that of a tenant over the declared portion of the land. There is a clear decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sitaram v. Hawdya1 that after the tenanted land vests in the tenant he is deemed to be the full owner thereof after the date of vesting and thereafter the relationship of landlord and tenant is not kept alive. Hence, it is quite clear that Babu became the owner of 7 acres 20 gunthas and hence his suit in the civil court against the defendants is clearly maintainable. 7. Shri Borde appearing on behalf of the appellants sought to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court on the strength of section 98 of the Tenancy Act. I do not find that section 98 comes into play in this case. Now, this is a suit filed by the owner against the trespassers for possession and it should normally be governed by the ordinary law of Lands. Assuming for a moment that a remedy under section 98 of the Tenancy Act was open to Babu, it was not incumbent upon Babu to approach the tenancy Court for obtaining reliefs. Now, this is a suit filed by the owner against the trespassers for possession and it should normally be governed by the ordinary law of Lands. Assuming for a moment that a remedy under section 98 of the Tenancy Act was open to Babu, it was not incumbent upon Babu to approach the tenancy Court for obtaining reliefs. At best, it could be said that it was a summary remedy available to Babu and that Babu did not avail himself of that summary remedy. Existence of a summary remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court in this respect. Shri Borde relied upon an unreported decision of this court in (Sundar v. Pandu)2 decided on 18th February 1981 by Palshikar J, as he then was, at Bombay. I have gone through the judgment and 1 find that the facts of this judgment are totally different from the facts of the instant case. In that case, there were two joint tenants and in spite of this a declaration of ownership was made only in favour of one tenant and hence a dispute arose between the tenant, who was declared to be the owner, and the joint tenant, who was not declared to be the owner. Thus, these facts are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case and that ruling is of no help to the appellants. 8. I am satisfied that this case is governed by the ordinary law of the lands and suit by the owner for possession against trespassers is clearly maintainable in the civil court, and this is nothing but a suit by a owner against the trespassers, because the erstwhile tenant was declared to be the owner under the Tenancy Act. I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. But looking to,the peculiar nature of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed. ----