JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari and for quashing an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, in Revision Case No. 210 of 1951-52. 2. The Petitioner purchased the disputed land measuring 2.58 acres from 3 persons, namely Dubi Patrani, Sari Patrani and Pata Patrani by registered sale deed dated 19th August 1949. These three vendors are the widows of three brothers who were divided and are their heirs. The petition among the brothers was effected by a registered deed of partition dated 4th June 1946, executed by Dubi Patrani, Parikhito Patra and Pata patrani. The disputed land is situated in village Sunamba and is know as Bandhatal Chira. The family owned some lands in two plots namely Chadakamara plot and Bandho Talo plot in this village. Pata Patrani got at the partition 1 acre and 30 decimals in Chadakamara and 75 decimals in Bondha Talo plot, that is, altogether 2 acres and 5 decimals, The second co-sharer similarly got 2 acres 5 decimals in this village, 1 acre 30 decimals of which was in Chadakamara and 75 decimals in Bandha Talo plots, The third co sharer was given 90 decimals in Chadakamara plot and 45 decimals in Bandha Talo plot. These specific plots are described by boundaries and refer to the portions allotted to the other co-sharers. The deed of partition further recites that these lands have already been divided and taken possession of at the time of executing the partition deed, the moveables having been divided sometimes earlier. In view of these recitals and particularly of the description of the plots allotted to each sharer, it is impossible to accept the view taken by the Revenue Officers that the partition was only 'a paper transaction' whatever that might mean, Reference has been made in the order of the Revenue Board Member, to the recitals in the sale-deed (Ext. 3). 3. The appellate Court as well as the Board of Revenue seem to have proceeded on the erroneous assumption that Ext. 3 was a sale-deed executed by all the co-shares jointly and have drawn an inference that this was a circumstance which militated against there having been a partition by metes and bounds. The fact, however, appears to be otherwise. 3. The appellate Court as well as the Board of Revenue seem to have proceeded on the erroneous assumption that Ext. 3 was a sale-deed executed by all the co-shares jointly and have drawn an inference that this was a circumstance which militated against there having been a partition by metes and bounds. The fact, however, appears to be otherwise. The sale-deed comprises three pieces of land, the first one being 1 acre 70 decimals in chadakamara plot the second being 72 decimals in Bandha Talo, and the third one being 16 decimals in Kania Kiari which is a different plot, Along with these a threshing floor and a Nala have also been sold. The title to these,plot of the several co-sharers is stated on the body of the sale-deed and a reference is made to two registered documents, one of them being the deed of partition and another a deed of settlement. This deed therefore does not show that any undivided interest in a common land-was sold by the co-sharers. On the other hand, it clearly discloses that specific plots owned by the different vendors under different titles were jointly sold by one sale-deed, We have, therefore, no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that on the relevant date, namely, 30th November 1947, the tenant did not hold land under a ryot who owned lands measuring 33 acres and over. He was not, of course, ejected n that date as he was holding under a joint muchalika before the date of partition. But after the ryots partitioned their lands he became a tenant under each one of them and was, therefore, deprived of the protection which he would otherwise have got under the Act. The purchaser admittedly did not own, nor does he own now, 33 acres, and consequently the tenant cannot claim any protection u/s 7 of the Act. 4. The order of the Deputy Collector, Aska, in M.P. 30 of 1950 dismissing the Petitioner's application for eviction is set aside and a certificate will now issue that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, is quashed and that the Petitioner shall be entitled to evict the opposite party as prayed for in this petition, The Petitioners shall also have costs of this application. Hearing fee Rs. 100/- (rupees one hundred only). Mohapatra, J. 5. I agree.