JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. The plaintiffs-respondents brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal for maintenance of possession as tenants of certain cultivatory holding and for a declaration that they were such tenants. They prayed in the alternative that in the event of the court finding that they were not in possession, a decree be made for delivery of possession. It appears that the zamindar of the village sued the defendants-appellants for arrears of rent of the holding The plaintiffs intervened claiming to be the tenants of the holding. The Revenue Court found against them and made a decree in favour of the zamindar against the defendants. Thereupon the present suit was brought in the Civil Court for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the tenants of the holding and for maintenance of possession. The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiffs are in possession, and granted them a decree declaring their rights as tenants in possession of the holding. The first contention raised in this appeal is that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court. This contention is supported by the ruling of the Full Bench in Ajudhia Rai vs. Parmeshet Rai, (1896) I.L.R. 18 All. 340. 2. In that case it was held by the majority of the Full Bench that a suit like the present was a suit for determination of the class of the plaintiff's tenancy and was a matter in respect of which the plaintiff's were entitled to make an application under section 10 of Act No. XII of 1881, and that such a suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court. The learned Vakil for the respondents has referred to the case of Brij Bhukan vs. Durga Dat, (1898) I.L.R. 20 All. 258. That case so far from supporting the respondents seems to me to be against them. The learned Judges held that “the decree of the court of first appeal declaring Brij Bhukan's title as a tenant at fixed rates of the holding and his right to possession as such tenant was a decree which a Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass.” The Full Bench ruling to which I have referred, is binding upon me, and following it I must hold that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court. In accordingly allow the appeal with costs, and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court with costs, restore the decree of the Court of first instance.