JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for their share of profits for the year 1318 and 1319. It appears that during these years the plaintiffs were recorded as co-sharers, but before the institution of this suit a suit had been brought in the Civil Court which decided that the plaintiff had no title and that they were not co-sharers although they were recorded as such. In accordance with the decision of the Civil Court an application was made for the correction of the entry in the Revenue papers and for the removal of the names of the plaintiffs from the list of co-sharers. It was during the pendency of this application that the present suit was brought. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit and in our opinion rightly. The learned Counsel for the appellants relies upon Section 201 of the Agra Tenancy Act and contends that as at the date of the suit the plaintiffs were recorded as co-sharers, there was a presumption in their favour under the section that they were co-sharers and were entitled to profits. He also relies on the decision of the Full Bench in Durga Prashad v. Hazari Singh 11 Ind. Cas. 116 : 33 A. 799 : 8 A.L.J. 1025 (F.B.). In our opinion this case is clearly met by the observations made by the learned Chief Justice in his judgment, in the Full Bench case referred to above. At page 807 of the report he says: "In very extreme cases where it is clear that there has been some mistake in the record, it would, I think, be open to the Revenue Court to postpone the decision of the case to give the defendant an opportunity of making an application in the Revenue Court to have the entry corrected." In this case as we have said above, an application had already been made for the correction of the entry. A Civil Court had already decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff's title and before the case was decided, the entry of the names of the plaintiffs in the Revenue papers was corrected and their names were expunged. Therefore, it seems to us that this is not a case in which the plaintiffs can claim the presumption of Section 201 of the Tenancy Act. Under that section, if effect was given to the presumption, the defendants' remedy would be to bring a suit in the Civil Court. In the present instance a suit had already been brought and a decree obtained negativing the plaintiffs' title. Their names were expunged before the decree in the suit was passed. Therefore, Section 201 would be of no avail to the plaintiffs. We might point out that in the case of Bhawani Singh v. Dilawar Khan 1 Ind. Cas. 886 : 31 A. 253 (F.B.) : 6 A.L.J. 145 it was held that when as between the parties to a Revenue suit, a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has decided the title to the property adversely to the plaintiff who claims profits, the Revenue Court is not competent to ignore that decision. This ruling also governs the present case. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees on the higher scale.