Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred by appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20-8-1990 passed by First Appellate Court dismissing his suit. ( 2. ) NO exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to state that a suit for possession was filed in respect to certain agricultural land which is the subject-matter of the suit. The suit was filed simplicitor for possession. According to the plaintiff, she is the Bhumiswami of land in question and was illegally dispossessed by the defendant. Hence she filed suit for possession. ( 3. ) THE averments made in the plaint were denied by the defendant in the written statement. The Trial Court after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence decreed the suit of plaintiff. ( 4. ) AN appeal was preferred by the defendant before the First Appellate Court which has been allowed and the suit has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. According to First Appellate Court a simplicitor suit for possession of agricultural land was not maintainable since the same is barred under Section 257 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short the Code ). Hence this second appeal. ( 5. ) ON 9-1-1992, this second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :" whether the suit filed by the appellant was maintainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case ?" ( 6. ) IT is no more in dispute that the subject-matter of suit is agricultural land. On going through the plaint, it is gathered that a simplicitor suit for possession has been filed by the plaintiff. Under Section 257 (x) of the Code a civil suit wherein a relief has been sought for reinstatement of Bhumiswami who has been improperly dispossessed can not be filed in the Civil Court, and the said Bhumiswami should file the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code before the competent Revenue Authority. The present suit is not for declaration of Bhumiswami right nor for any other relief except possession. According to the plaintiff, she is a Bhumiswami who has been illegally dispossessed. According to her, the present civil suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 257 (x) of the Code. In this context, I may profitably rely on the decision in the case of Lal Kunwar and Ors. According to the plaintiff, she is a Bhumiswami who has been illegally dispossessed. According to her, the present civil suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 257 (x) of the Code. In this context, I may profitably rely on the decision in the case of Lal Kunwar and Ors. v. Shivnarain and Anr. , 1998 RN 89, wherein this Court, in Paras 8 and 9 held as under :-"8. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not sought declaration, but made a casual averment in Para 1 of the plaint that he was the Bhumiswami of the suit land, hence he claimed possession and also mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month. The evidence adduced reveals that the defendant was the occupancy tenant and on enforcement of the Code he became Bhumiswami. The plaintiff was never in possession of the land. The plaintiffs witness Laxminarain (P. W. 1), the brother and attorney of the plaintiff, who in Para 13 of his statement, stated that the agricultural land was being cultivated on Batai, and that there was a compromise in the earlier suit, whereby the defendant was to pay Rs. 200/- in Baisakh Samvat 2027 and Rs. 100/- in Baisakh Samvat 2038, but the defendant failed to pay, hence possession of the land was taken, but later the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. For arguments sake that the defendant was the Bhumiswami and, therefore, he was not bound to avail of speedy remedy provided in Section 250 of the Code, though it was open to him to take recourse to the summary remedy under Section 250. Without availing the said remedy he could have approached the Civil Court for possession based on title, but in the suit, the plaintiff was bound to establish his title to the land to recover possession, that is what has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Ramgopal V. Chetu, 1976 JU270, and other decision of this Court. Without availing the said remedy he could have approached the Civil Court for possession based on title, but in the suit, the plaintiff was bound to establish his title to the land to recover possession, that is what has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Ramgopal V. Chetu, 1976 JU270, and other decision of this Court. However, in the present case, a bare reading of plaint, as a whole shows that except the casual and bare statement in Para 1 that the plaintiff is Bhumiswami of the land, there is nothing in the plaint that in the suit the plaintiff in any manner seeks determination of title and relief of that. On the other hand, the plaintiff, admittedly prior to taking of so called possession through Court in execution of the decree, was not in possession of the land nor was a Bhumiswami. Therefore, without establishing the title, the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain possession. " Thereafter in Para 10, it has been further held that the plaintiff can not maintain the suit by merely adding the relief of mesne profits as the suit was not based on title. According to me, the decision of the case of Lai Kunwar (supra) squarely covers the fate of the present case also. ( 7. ) SINCE the civil suit is not maintainable, according to me, the First Appellate Court rightly allowed the appeal and held the suit to be not maintainable. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. ( 8. ) IN the result, the appeal is found to be devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.