Civil court jurisdiction over trespasser suits where plaint is read as a whole and tenancy reference does not bar the claim.

Civil court jurisdiction is determined from the plaint as a whole, not from the defence. Where the defendants denied title and tenancy and the plaintiffs proceeded against them as trespassers after revenue proceedings failed, the suit for possession and mesne profits lay in civil court. A mere reference to tenancy in the plaint did not make the matter exclusively triable by the revenue forum, so the bar under Sections 32 and 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was not attracted on the pleaded case.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the allegations in the plaint, the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit for possession and mesne profits when the defendants denied the plaintiffs' title and tenancy and the suit treated the defendants as trespassers.

Analysis: Jurisdiction is determined from the plaint as a whole and not from the defence in the written statement. The suit was instituted after the revenue proceedings failed and after the defendants had denied both title and tenancy. On that footing, the plaintiffs proceeded against the defendants as trespassers. A suit against a trespasser lies in the civil court, and the mere reference in the plaint to tenancy did not convert the suit into one falling exclusively within the revenue forum. The bar under Sections 32 and 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was therefore not attracted on the pleaded case.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the High Court was wrong in non-suiting the plaintiffs on the ground of jurisdiction.

---