JUDGMENT Mukerji, J.
1. This application in revision arises under the following circumstances: The respondent Thakur Ewaz Singh brought a suit for recovery of profits against the applicant Kuerani Mt. Dan Kuer for recovery of Rs. 700 odd as profits, being the profits of a half-share in a mortgaged property. The respondent's case was that he and the defendant had taken a mortgage in equal shares from certain persons and the respondent had not been given his share of the profits, by the Kuerani Mt. Dan Kuer, who was in possession.
2. In her defence the defendant raised the plea that she was the owner of the entire mortgage and that the plaintiff was not at all interested in the mortgage. The question of proprietary title to the property involved in the suit for profits having thus been raised, the learned Assistant Collector framed an issue and sent it through the District Judge to the Court of the Munsif at Shikohabad for trial. An application was made by the Kuerani Mt. Dan Kuer to the District Judge for transfer of the proceedings, from the Court of the Munsif to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, on the ground that the value of the property involved was more than Rs. 10,000 and the value of the mortgage itself was over Rs. 9,000. It appears that the Munsif at Shikohabad is invested with pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 4,000 only.
3. The application was opposed before the learned District Judge by Thakur Ewaz Singh and the learned Judge was of opinion that the valuation of the issue to be tried must be the value of the suit for profits, namely Rs. 700 odd. In that view, the learned Judge dismissed the application. The defendant Kuerani, Mt. Dan Kuer, has come before us and it is urged that the question of proprietary title of large property has to be tried and it ought to be tried . by the Subordinate Judge.
4. We are of opinion that the "competent Court" before whom an issue like this should go is the Court who would take cognizance of a suit involving the title to the property and of the suit on which that question of title may be fairly and (ultimately decided. We are fortified in this opinion by the language of Section 271, Agra Tenancy Act, being Act 3 of 1926. The relevant portion runs as follows:
. . . . The revenue Court shall frame an issue on the question of proprietary right and submit the record to a competent civil Court for decision of that issue only.
5. The words "competent civil Court" have been intentionally used, so that the issue may be tried by a Court which would be competent to decide the question of proprietary title to the property in question. We are further fortified in this view by the provision made in the same section, namely an appeal would lie from the decision of the Assistant Collector to a Court which would be competent to hear an appeal from the Court which shall decide the question of proprietary title. This would mean that if the proprietary title relates to a property of the value of say Rs. 20,000 the Subordinate Judge should hear the issue and the appeal from the revenue Court should come directly to the High Court. This state of the law has great advantage, because the question of proprietary title, we take it, will be finally decided between the parties and no further chance of litigation will be left to them.
6. We would point out that in the rules that were framed by the High Court for the guidance of the subordinate Courts, the Court directed the District Judge to send the case to a "proper subordinate civil Court for disposal." The idea clearly was that the Judge would be in a better position to see which Court would have-jurisdiction to hear the question of proprietary title raised by the issue.
7. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the Assistant Collector having said that the issue should go-before the Munsif we should virtually be setting aside an order of the revenue-Court if we said that the case should go before the Subordinate Judge. We dc not think this argument is sound. When once the Munsif is fully seised of the case it is open to the High Court or the District Judge, under Section 24, Civil P.C., to transfer the proceedings to any other Court of competent jurisdiction.
8. In the result, we allow the application and direct the proceedings pending before the learned Munsif at Shikohabad be transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri. Having regard to the fact that the question is a new one and much could be said on either side, we direct that the parties pay their own costs in the Court below and in this. Court.