In the case of Abdulla Bin Ali (supra) relied by learned counsel for plaintiffs-respondents Tayamma filed an application in the year 1919 before Tahsildar alleging that she had executed a mortgage deed and not sale deed in favour of appellants' father however Tahsildar negatived her claim holding that she had executed a sale deed, not a mortgage deed. The appeal filed by Tayamma was dismissed directing parties to approach Civil Court for a proper redress of grievances. In above case in the meantime Saibanna, brother of Galappa was inducted as a tenant and father of appellants filed a suit for declaration of his title and ownership in respect of disputed land against Galappa and his brother Saibanna, which was decreed. On death of father of appellants, he was succeeded by appellants, and Saibanna who fell in arrears, on application by appellants for recovery of said amount in the Court of Tahsildar denied title of appellants as also the tenancy, on which appellants also initiated proceedings for correction of tenancy register, which was dismissed with direction to appellants to approach Civil Court as the dispute between the parties involved a question of title. In above circumstances, appellants also filed a suit for possession and means profits treating defendantsrespondents as trespassers, which was opposed on the ground of jurisdiction being barred by sections 32 and 99 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The above plea of jurisdiction raised by defendants in above suit was neither accepted by Trial Court nor by 1st Appellate Court, however High Court setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Courts below held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the Apex Court considering that the plaintiff was earlier directed by Revenue Court to approach the Civil Court and suit had been filed against trespassers, which lies only in Civil Courts and not Revenue
