JUDGMENT Chamier, J.
1. It appears to me that the decrees of the Courts below in this case are correct. As the Munsif has observed, the plaint filed by the appellant was drafted in such a way as to avoid all mention, of the partition proceedings, regarding the village, which were commenced in April 1910. The suit was instituted at a time when the partition proceedings had been struck off for default, but a few days later they were restored to the pending file and the case must, it seems to me, be treated as though the partition proceedings were pending at the time when the suit was filed. In the partition proceedings, the appellant made more than one application asking for exactly the same relief as that which he prayed for in the present suit, that is to say, that he is entitled to 719/43 out of 16 shares in two-thirds of 22 acres and that an entry in the village khewat showing him to be the owner of five shares only is wrong. The appellant alleges that his repeated applications in the Revenue Court have not been properly disposed of. But that fact does not entitle him to come into Civil Court to get rid of the effect of the order passed by the Revenue Authorities in the partition proceedings. It is quite clear that the appellant was not required to file this suit under Section 111 of the Revenue Act. There are cases in which it has been held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the share of a person in a village or mahal, which has been the subject of a partition, is not affected by Section 233 of the Revenue Act. But in those cases it was shown that for one reason or another, the parties concerned had not been allowed or had not had an opportunity of putting their case before the Revenue Authorities. In the present case, the appellant had the opportunity, and all that can be said, if his allegations are correct, is that the Revenue Authorities decided wrongly. Notwithstanding the form of the plaint, which was, no doubt, designed to conceal the partition proceedings, the suit appears to me to relate to the partition of a mahal. There is no doubt that the object of the appellant is to get rid of the adverse order passed by the Revenue Authorities. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.