NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is referred to a Division Bench by Malimath, J. who heard it in the first instance for the reason that he found himself unable to accept as correct the view earlier taken by Datar, J. in several matters on the question which arose for decision in the revision petition. ( 2 ) THE question that arose for consideration was whether the finding of the Munsiff on a preliminary issue as to the status claimed by the defendant as an agricultural tenant and the protection from eviction in consequence thereof, was one which could be taken up in appeal to the district Court. ( 3 ) THE issue framed by the Munsiff reads as follows: whether the defendant is an agricultural tenant and if so, is he protected from eviction under the Mysore Land Reforms Act? the Munsiff tried it as a preliminary issue and recorded a finding in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff's appeal to the District Court was dismissed as incompetent following the decision of this Court pronounced by Datar, j. in Rudru Shedthi v. Vishnumurthi Bhagavatha, CRP. 2453/71 dt. 11-1-1972. The revision petition heard by Malimath, J. , is the one directed against the said order of the District Judge. ( 4 ) THERE is no doubt that the question whether a person is a tenant or not, is a question placed within the jurisdiction of the Court as defined under the Mysore Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by S. 112 thereof. The Court as defined in clause 9 (a) of S. 2 (A), means the Court of the Munsiff within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. ( 5 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 133 of the Act states:" If any suit instituted in the Court as denned in this Act, involves any issues which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by that Court under this Act the same shall be tried as preliminary issues and the suit shall be proceeded with after deciding such preliminary issues. "dealing with a suit of a like nature instituted in any Civil Court other than that of the Munsiff, such other Civil Court is required by sub-sec. "dealing with a suit of a like nature instituted in any Civil Court other than that of the Munsiff, such other Civil Court is required by sub-sec. (2) (a) of S. 133 of the Act -to stay the suit and refer such issues to the Court for decision (the Court meaning the Court having jurisdiction under the Act ). ( 6 ) UNDER S. 132 it is declared:" No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide, or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Court. . . . . . . " ( 7 ) THE total effect of the provisions of the Act cited above, so far as the present case is concerned. is that the question whether a person is a tenant or not. is a question which can be competently decided only bv the court defined under the Act and not by any other CM] Court. If, in an ordinary Civil Suit, one or more issues arise which involve questions enumerated in S. 112 of the Art as those within the jurisdiction of the court, the express mandate of the statute, so far as the Court of the Munsiff is concerned, is to try those issues as preliminary issues, decide them and then proceed to hear the suit and if the suit is on the file of anv other civil Court the mandate is that the said Court shall stay the suit and bend the issue or issues in. question for decision by the Court having jurisdiction. ( 8 ) THE object of the statute in making these clear directions undoubtedly is two-fold: First that all questions set out under S. 112 of the Act shall be placed within the jurisdiction of the Court as defined by the statute and secondly to see that the issues involving anv of those questions are decided first before any other matter or issue arising in the suit can be tried. ( 9 ) THE purpose of making such clear distinction between matters falling within S. 112 and those not so falling will become clearer when we read S. 118 providing for an appeal. Under sub-sec. ( 9 ) THE purpose of making such clear distinction between matters falling within S. 112 and those not so falling will become clearer when we read S. 118 providing for an appeal. Under sub-sec. (1) thereof, with which alone we are now concerned, "from every decision or order passed bv the Court, an appeal shall lie to the District Court and the orders of district Court on such appeal shall be final. " ( 10 ) THE clear intention of the statute, therefore, is to place the matters under S. 112 of the Act within the jurisdiction of a separate set of Tribunals or within the scope of a special jurisdiction specially conferred upon the existing Courts and to place them beyond the jurisdiction of all other Civil Courts. ( 11 ) THE choice of the word 'decide' in S. 133 (1) of the Act while stating that the suit) shall be proceeded with after deciding the preliminary issues and the enumeration of a "decision" as one of the adjudications from which an appeol shall lie to the District Court, leave no room for doubt in our opinion that the finding on a preliminary issue by the Court is a decision within the meaning of 5. 118 (1) of the Act from which an appeal lies to the District Court. Hence both the original decision on the issue as well as the appeal against it are placed beyond the jurisdiction of ordinary civil Courts. The description of the appellate order as 'final' in S. 118 (1) also has the same effect. ( 12 ) IT has been suggested that because it is a decision on a preliminary issue in an ordinary suit, the correctness of the same may be canvassed in an appeal presented against the final decree in the suit. It is, however difficult to accept this suggestion beacuse if the valuation and nature of the suit should be such as to indicate the Civil Judge's Court as the appellate court, to take the view suggested would be to confer upon the Civil judge the jurisdiction to go into one of the questions under S. 112 of the act, which is expressly prohibited by the Act. ( 13 ) WE, therefore, dissent from the view expressed in Rudu Shedthi v, Vishnumurthi Bhagavatha (1) already referred, and overrule the said decision. ( 13 ) WE, therefore, dissent from the view expressed in Rudu Shedthi v, Vishnumurthi Bhagavatha (1) already referred, and overrule the said decision. ( 14 ) WE hold that from a decision on a preliminary issue referred to in 8. 132 (1) of the Act, an appeal lies to the District Court under 3. 118 (1) of the Act. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY the order of the District Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore, dated the 21st of March 1972 sought to be revised, is set aside and he is directed to take back on file MA. No. 47 of 1972 and dispose of the same on merits. --- *** --- .