1. The opinion of the lower appellate Court is partly wrong but on the finding of fact of fraud this appeal cannot succeed. The plaintiff is a grove-holder and sued for such declaration with respect to the plot in suit and in the alternative for possession. It happened that for arrears of rent the defendants zamindars had taken action against the plaintiff to eject him under Section 57(a), Tenancy Act of 1901. In pursuance of these proceedings the plaintiff was ejected. The lower appellate Court held: (1) that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to eject the plaintiff because the property in suit was a grove and not tenancy land and (2) that the decree was obtained by the defendants through fraud practised on the plaintiff and that therefore the decree was not binding on the plaintiff.
2. The first finding is not correct. It was open to the revenue Court to hold that the plaintiff was an agricultural tenant and not a grove-holder and there would be no want of jurisdiction if the revenue Court decided that the plaintiff was merely an agricultural tenant. Such a decision would bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court to re-agitate the matter: see Kundan Lal v. Prasadi A.I.R. 1924 All. 744.
3. Wherever, however, a decree is obtained by fraud, even in the revenue Court the jurisdiction of the civil Court arises to have it declared null and void by reason of the fraud. In the present case there is a definite finding of the lower appellate Court which is binding on this Court that fraud was practised on the plaintiff and that the decree for ejectment was obtained through such fraud. Such fraud, when proved, vitiates the proceedings in the revenue Court. When the revenue Court decree became void through fraud, the civil Court had jurisdiction to determine the question over again as to whether the plaintiff was an agricultural tenant or a grove-holder, There is a finding of fact that he was a grove-holder. He was, therefore, entitled to the possession granted to him by the lower Courts.
4. Lastly there is the argument that the revenue Court held in an application for review of judgment that no fraud had been practised on the plaintiff. The civil Court is the proper Court to determine the question of fraud and the finding of the revenue Court in review proceeding is not binding on the civil Court. I dismiss this appeal with costs.