JUDGMENT : 1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs who are appellants in this Court. The relief which they ask for is that the fact may be declared that they, the plaintiffs, are the occupancy tenants of 10 bighas 19 biswas pukhta of land entered in the schedule to the plaint and that the defendant is not joint with them in the said holding. Both the Courts, below have dismissed the claim. The lower appellate Court has dismissed it of the following ground : It declines to go into the question at all whether the respondent has or has not occupancy rights of his own in the land. That is, it says, not the question for a civil Court, and it declines to touch it. But it goes on to say that in its opinion, upon the facts which have been found to be admitted and proved, the respondent is a sharer with the plaintiffs and that he was really a partner with the plaintiffs. One of the partners cannot get rid of the other summarily as he could have a labourer. A partner cannot be ejected unless he has contravened the terms of partnership. There is no suggestion that this has been done and it does not appear that the respondent has ever denied the title of the plaintiffs-appellants. On these grounds also it is not proper to make the declaration asked for. 2. In this Court the pleas taken in appeal are that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree on these findings, that it is inconceivable that occupancy rights should accrue in favour of one only of two partners, and that the fact found that occupancy rights accrued in favour of Ram Kuar, the predecessor of the appellants, only shows that she was the only tenant. Now the matter in dispute between the parties is really whether Randhera is or is not an occupancy tenant of the holding in dispute. The appellants could have made an application to determine this matter by action taken in accordance with Section 95 of the Agra Tenancy Act of 1901. The objection raised, that the zamindars are no parties to this suit, is, in my opinion, entitled to no weight. The appellants could have made an application to determine this matter by action taken in accordance with Section 95 of the Agra Tenancy Act of 1901. The objection raised, that the zamindars are no parties to this suit, is, in my opinion, entitled to no weight. Granted that the appellants wanted to have this matter decided, it is open to them to join the landholder or land-holders and Randhera in a suit under S. 95 of that Act. This being so no Court other than a revenue Court shall take congnizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which a suit might be brought under S. 95 of the said Act. I dismiss this appeal with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.