Judgment :- 1. The question arising for decision in this civil revision petition is whether a suit for extinguishing Michavara pattom right in immovable property is liable to be stayed under S.4 of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, I of 1957. 2. The facts necessary for the decision of the case may be stated. The property described in the plaint schedule was demised on Michavara Pattom by Padakasseri Tarward to the defendant and his brother Mathen in the year 1099. This arrangement was renewed in the year 1117. In the mean while the defendant and his brother had executed an usufructuary mortgage to one Pappi Thoma who in turn mortgaged his right to one Joseph Chandy. On 19-8 -1118 the defendant and his brother executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the plaintiff directing him to redeem the mortgage in favour of Pappy Thoma and accordingly the plaintiff redeemed that mortgage as well as the sub-mortgage in favour of Joseph Chandy and obtained possession. The plaintiff then purchased the equity of redemption from Padakasseri tarwad and he also obtained a release of the defendant's brother's right in the property. Thus on the date of suit the plaintiff was in possession of one-half of the property as full owner while in respect of the other half, he owned the equity of redemption and was in possession as mortgagee of the defendant. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff for payment of a sum of 162 fanams to the defendant being one-half of the consideration under the michavara pattom deed and for a declaration that on such payment, the Michavara Pattom right of the defendant was extinguished As the plaintiff was in possession there was no prayer for recovery of possession from the defendant. The defendant contend that the suit was liable to be stayed under S.4 of Act I of 1957. This contention was raised in a statement filed on 5-12-1957 which may be translated as follows: (1) The suit is for recovery of possession of property on the basis of a kanappattom deed of 1117 which was executed in renewal of an earlier kanapattom deed. (2) The said transaction is one covered by Act I of 1957. (3) The trial of the suit should therefore be stayed. (2) The said transaction is one covered by Act I of 1957. (3) The trial of the suit should therefore be stayed. The plaintiff opposed stating that the suit was not one for eviction of a person from his holding as contemplated by S.4 and that the trial ought not to be stayed. The learned Munsiff held that the transaction had all the incidents of a kanapattom and that the suit was one for eviction of a person from his holding. Accordingly he passed an order staying trial of the suit and the plaintiff has preferred this revision petition against the said order. 3. Shri T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that S.4 was not applicable as the property could not be treated as a holding the defendant being out of possession, and that even if it could be so deemed, the suit was not one for eviction. The main point for consideration is whether the suit is one for "eviction of a person from his holding". S.4 provides: - "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, no suit or other proceedings for eviction of a person from his holding or for the recovery of arrears of rent in respect of, the holding accrued due before the commencement of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance, 1957, shall lie in any Court and all suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders and other proceedings pending in the courts at such commencement for such eviction or recovery Of arrears of such rent or damages shall be stayed." In deciding this question it is useful to take into consideration the principle of S.9 of C.P.C.S. 9 is as follows: - "The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred." It is well-settled that statutes affecting the jurisdiction of courts are to be construed as far as possible to avoid the effect of transferring the determination of rights and liabilities of parties from the ordinary courts. It has been held in Luthra Uraon v. Samua Uraon (26 Pat 377) and Manager, Court of Wards v. Seth Moolchand 1941 Nag. It has been held in Luthra Uraon v. Samua Uraon (26 Pat 377) and Manager, Court of Wards v. Seth Moolchand 1941 Nag. 226) that statutes ousting the jurisdiction of Civil courts should be strictly construed. In Surajnarain v. Jamil (25 Pat. 7) it was held that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a civil court to establish his contention. The question has to be decided in the light of these principles. 5. Suits or other proceedings which are stayed by S.4 are those for "eviction of a person from his holding". The word "eviction" connotes dispossession. Black's Law Dictionary gives the meaning of "eviction" as "dispossession by process of law; the act of depriving a person of the possession of lands which he has held, in pursuance of a judgment of a court. Phrases equivalent in meaning are 'ouster by paramount title', "entry and disturbance", 'possession under an elder title', and the like. Eviction is an actual expulsion of the lessee out of or some part of the demised premises. In the more popular sense the term denotes turning a tenant of land out of possession either by re-entry or legal proceedings, such as an action of ejectment." The shorter Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of eviction as "(i) the action of recovering lands or properties by legal process; (2) the action of evicting or dispossessing a person of property etc." That the word eviction was used in the Act in the sense of dispossession of persons in actual possession of land is also seen from the title of the Act which is stated as an Act to stay eviction of tenants, Kudikidappukars and other classes of persons cultivating lands. " The Preamble also makes it clear that the statute is enacted "to take immediate action for the temporary protection of tenants, Kudikidappukars and persons cultivating lands on varom, sambalapattom or other similar arrangements pending enactment of a comprehensive legislation relating to tenancy and agrarian reforms". An enactment for conferring permanent occupancy rights on persons actually cultivating land under permissive title has been in contemplation for several years and Acts similar to Act I of 1957 were being passed from time to time, pending such legislation. Act I of 1957 is the latest of such enactments in this State and the Preamble gives the object and scope of the Act. 6. Act I of 1957 is the latest of such enactments in this State and the Preamble gives the object and scope of the Act. 6. The question whether the suit is one for eviction may now be considered. Suits and other proceedings contemplated by S.4 are only those for dispossessing persons cultivating land and those for recovery of rent or damages for use and occupation of land. The defendant was not in possession of the land at the time of the institution of the suit and there was no prayer in the plaint for evicting him. All that the court has to see is whether the suit is one for dispossession of a person and if it is, the suit must be stayed under S.4. The court has only to look at the pleadings for the decision of this question. The scope of the section cannot be enlarged beyond what is provided therein. As the suit is not one for eviction or dispossession of the defendant, S.4 does not come into operation. In this view it is unnecessary to consider whether the land can be deemed to be a "holding" as defined by the Act because even if it is, there is no suit for eviction. It follows that the order of the court below staying trial proceedings in the suit cannot be upheld. The order is therefore set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Allowed.