JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff, here appellant, has sued for ascertainment by division of his share of: the property, which he and defendant are at present holding in common and for ejectment of defendant from that share, on the basis that defendant is in possession of it as a non-occupancy tenant. The Lower Appellate Court returned the pLalnt for presentation to a Revenue Court. 2. The disposal would no doubt be appropriate, if the prayer for ejectment could be regarded separately and if that remedy were authorized by the Madras Estates Land Act in the circumstances. But the Act provides for the grant of relief only in respect of holdings; and the definition of holding in Section 3(3) by reference to parcels entails in our opinion that only ascertained holdings are contemplated. This is consistent with Chapter X and is supported by the interpretation placed on the similar provision of the law in Bengal in Sreemati Parbaty Debya v. Mathura Nath Bannerjee 16 C.W.N. 877. Until the plaintiff has had the holding, in respect of which he asks for ejectment, ascertained, it will be meaningless for him to approach a Revenue Court; and this is the real substance of the compLalnt he makes against the lower courts direction to him to do so, that Revenue Court cannot grant partition. 3. We may at this point observe that the opinion of the Full Bench in Sri Gadadhara Das Bavaji Mahant v. Suryanarayana Patnik (1921) 41 M.L.J. 97 : 44 M. 677 would appear on the pleadings to be fatal to plaintiffs prayer for ejectment. That however is no reason why he should be refused the other relief to which he appears to be entitled. 4. The course we take is accordingly to set aside the decision of the Lower Courts, to allow the plaintiff to amend his pLalnt by withdrawing the prayer for possession and to remand the suit to the District Munsifs Qourt for re-admission and disposal as a suit for ascertainment of piaintiffs share in the property, which, he alleges, is held by himself and defendant as tenants-in-common. PLalntiff must of course pay the deficient stamp duty on the prayer for partition within a reasonable time to be fixed by the District Munsif, since he has not paid duty on that account already. 5. Each party will bear bis own costs in this and the Lower Appellate Court to date. PLalntiff must of course pay the deficient stamp duty on the prayer for partition within a reasonable time to be fixed by the District Munsif, since he has not paid duty on that account already. 5. Each party will bear bis own costs in this and the Lower Appellate Court to date. Costs before the District Munsif will be costs in the cause.