JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This appeal is by Defendant No. 1 from the confirming decision dated 15-12-1969 of the Sub-Judge, Sambalpur in T.A. No. 12/3 of 1968. 2. The Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of Schedule B-2 lands and for damages. Schedule B-2 is 23 decimals of land from plot No. 319 appertaining to raiyati khata No. 22 of mouza Bad Dumermunda, Tahasil Kuchinda in the ex-state of Bamra. The entire khata No. 22 comprises of 37.89 acres of land. It stood recorded in Mopherson settlement in the names of Manbodh, Hadi and Madan, three sons of one Dha. In other words the three brothers were recorded tenants in respect of the Raiyati Khata No. 22. In a family partition of the year 1948 or 1949 Schedule A lands comprising of 7.85 acres out of Khata No. 22 including the entire plot No. 319 fell to the share of Manbodhs branch. Bhagirathi, son of Manbodh then applied for Kandhua Khatian which was prepared in due course. On the death of Bhagirathi in the year 1962, his properties were inherited by his son Chamar, Defendant No. 4. By a series of sale transactions always accompanied by delivery of possession, the first sale being by Bhagirathi to Defendant No. 5 on 16-7-1947 (Ex. 2), the suit land came to the Plaintiffs under the last sala transaction of the series which was by Defendant No. 6 to the Plaintiff No. 2 for Rs. 50/- by an unregistered sale deed dated 13.4.1953 (Ex. 3). On 27-3-1953, Bhagirathi acknowledged and accepted the aforesaid sales by a document Ex. 7 dated 27-4-1953. Thus, the Plaintiffs acquired title to and possession over the suit land on 13-4-1953. Defendant No. 1 took the suit land on lease for a period of 3 years from the Plaintiffs on monthly rent of Rs. 4/- for the non-agricultural purpose of constructing a temporary hut on it and residing therein, and executed an agreement to that effect in Plaintiffs? khata book (Ex. 8) on 14.3.1957. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 constructed a hut and paid rent regularly to the Plaintiffs till 31.3.1960 and, such payments were also entered in the khata books of the Plaintiffs (Ex. 9 series). khata book (Ex. 8) on 14.3.1957. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 constructed a hut and paid rent regularly to the Plaintiffs till 31.3.1960 and, such payments were also entered in the khata books of the Plaintiffs (Ex. 9 series). Then Defendant No. 4, son of Bhagirathi, sold Schedule D lands including the suit land and other lands to the Plaintiffs en 22-5-1963 for valuable consideration after obtaining permission from the concerned revenue authorities, as he was a member of schedule tribe and the vendees were members of non-scheduled tribe. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 purchased the very suit land from Defendants 2 and 3, but it is alleged that this sale was without consideration. After expiry of 3 years, Plaintiffs asked Defendant No. 1 to vacate the suit land by notice dated 11-9-1960 and again in December, 1965 they demanded vacant possession of the suit land from him together with arrears of house rent and damages. This, in substance, is the Plaintiffs? case. 3. The Defendant No. 1?s case is that there was no partition amongst the three brothers, Manbodh, Hadi and Madan. Hadi, as karta of the family, gave the whole plot 319, which includes the suit lands, to Defendant No. 1 under an agreement of sale. In pursuance of this agreement, Defendant No. 1 got a registered sale deed in respect of the same from Defendants 2 and 3 on 21-6-1963 and these by acquired title thereto. He has denied the best of the Plaintiffs? case including his tenancy under the Plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 has constructed a pucca house and a well on the disputed land without any objection from any quarter. 4. The findings of the trial Court are that Raiyati khata No. 22 was partitioned amongst three brothers Manbodh, Hadi and Madan in 1949 and the suit land fell to the share of Manbodh. Plaintiffs perfected their title to the suit land by adverse possession at least by the time of the suit i.e. by 30-9-1966. The Plaintiffs thereby acquired tenancy right in respect of the suit land. It was also found that they had inducted the Defendant No. 1 as tenant under them in respect of the suit land and Defendant No. 1 is estopped to deny landlords title of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, there? was relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1. It was also found that they had inducted the Defendant No. 1 as tenant under them in respect of the suit land and Defendant No. 1 is estopped to deny landlords title of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, there? was relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1. The various sales enumerated in the plaint beginning from 16-7-1947 were held to be invalid. 5. The lower appellate Court confirmed all the findings of the trial Court. Before him a point was taken that civil Court?s jurisdiction was barred u/s 7(a) of the Orissa Merged States? (Laws) Act, 1950. This point was negatived. 6. In this second appeal, the sole contention raised is that the civil Court?s jurisdiction is barred u/s 7(a) of the Orissa Merged States? (Laws) Act, 1950. The provisions of that section, so far as they are relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are extracted hereinbelow: 7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy laws of the merged States as continued in force by virtue of Article 4 of the States Merger (Governors? Provinces) Order, 1949: (a) all suits and proceedings between landlord and tenants as such shall be instituted and tried in revenue Courts. Explanation In this clause, the expression "landlord" shall mean a person immediately under whom a tenant holds land, and the expression "tenant" shall mean a person who holds land under another person and is or, but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent for that land to that person. (f) a "Sukhbasi" shall be entitled to the rights of an occupancy tenant over his homestead notwithstanding any law or custom to the contrary; Explanation-A "Sukhbasi" means any person holding only homestead whether or not recorded in the settlement?s paper as "Ghar", "Bari" or "Gharbari" or a person who is granted land by the Thekadar or by a competent revenue officer for the purpose of using it as homestead. 7. The aforesaid section has embodied the law of landlord and tenant which is to prevail over the pre-existing tenancy laws in the merged states. It defines ?landlord? 7. The aforesaid section has embodied the law of landlord and tenant which is to prevail over the pre-existing tenancy laws in the merged states. It defines ?landlord? and ?tenant?, has laid down the incidents of certain classes of tenants and specified grounds for their eviction and other matters relating to the rights and obligations of such landlords and tenants, and, what is most important for the present, purpose, has conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the revenue Court in regard to all suits and proceedings between landlords and tenants as defined. This codified law of landlord and tenant comes into force in the Ex-State of Bamra State on 3-3-1950 the date of commencement of the Orissa Merged States? (Laws) Act, 1950. This section deals expressly with the agricultural and homestead tenancies, that is to say, it deals with rights and liabilities of the landlords and tenants in relation to lands used for agricultural purposes. In this case, as already stated, the land in dispute is a part of khata No. 22 which is a Raiyati land. The Plaintiffs have described the disputed land as Raiyati land in the schedules to the plaint. Thus, this holding is a Raiyati holding and was used for agricultural purposes at the time when the Defendant No. 1 was inducted by the Plaintiffs as a tenant in respect of the suit land, which is a part of the Raiyati holding. Undoubtedly, the purpose of the Defendants? lease was for a non-agricultural residential purpose but, nevertheless, it was a lease in respect of an agricultural holding. In the background of these facts, the first question to be considered is whether the lease in question is to be governed by the Transfer of Property Act or by the tenancy law. It has been held consistently by the Calcutta High Court which has been accepted by a Division Bench of this Court that in ?Considering whether the Transfer of Property Act or tenancy law would apply, one has to look to the nature of the original tenancy and not the nature of the tenancy with reference to a particular piece of land within the landlord?s holding. In the case of Babu Ram Ray v. Mahendra Nath Samant 8 C.W.N. 454. In the case of Babu Ram Ray v. Mahendra Nath Samant 8 C.W.N. 454. Maclean C.J. said: The Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to lands used for agricultural purposes, and in considering whether the one Act, or the other would apply, we have to look to the nature of the original tenancy, and not the nature of the tenancy with reference to a particular piece of land within the landlord?s holding. Otherwise, the result would be anomalous. As between the landlord, and raiyat and under-raiyat the rights and obligations will be regulated by Section 55 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and it is difficult to suppose that the intention of the law is that as between the raiyat himself and the under-raiyat the relationship would be regulated by a different Act altogether. This decision was accepted by a later decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Abdul Karim v. Abdul Rahaman 15 C.L.J. 672. Dealing with this question Justice Mookherjee said: The Subordinate Judge has held that the holding which belonged to the three persons named was an agricultural holding and that as the Defendant has taken a sub-lease only of the homestead portion of the holding, the incidents of the sub-tenancy are governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. This position is clearly untenable. Section 182 of West Bengal Tenancy Act provides that when a raiyat holds his homestead otherwise than as part of his holding as a raiyat, the incidents of his tenancy of the homestead shall be regulated by local custom or usage; and subject to local custom or usage, by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act applicable to land held by a raiyat. No suggestion was made by either of the-parties to the present suit that there was any local custom or usage applicable to this matter. Consequently, the homestead portion of the holding is governed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act precisely in the same manner as the portion under actual cultivation. The view we take is supported by the decision in Babu Ram Roy v. Mahendra Nath Samanta 8 C.W.N. 454. Consequently, the homestead portion of the holding is governed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act precisely in the same manner as the portion under actual cultivation. The view we take is supported by the decision in Babu Ram Roy v. Mahendra Nath Samanta 8 C.W.N. 454. It was ruled in that case that where the land included in the holding of an agricultural raiyat consists partly of agricultural and partly of homestead lands and the portion which is used as homestead is let out for use as homestead, the under-tenant is an under-raiyat within the Bengal Tenancy Act and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act have no application Mr. Justice Mitra pointed out that the Bengal Tenancy Act was passed for the protection of raiyats as well as under-raiyats and if a raiyat holds lands partly agricultural and partly homestead, the incidents of the holding will regulate the? incidents of the sublease created by the raiyat. The Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to lands used for agricultural purposes, and in considering whether the one Act or the other would apply, We have to look to the nature of the original tenancy and not the nature of the sub-tenancy with reference to a particular piece of land within the holding. If the contrary view were maintained, considerable anomaly might result. It follows, therefore, that the incidents of the tenancy of the Defendant must be determined with reference to the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This decision was accepted by a Division Bench, of this Court in the case of Sri Gopal Jew Thakur; through Sebati Marfatdars Ambika Prasad Ghose and Ors. v. Mahajan Jagannath Das after his death, Madhabananda Das and Ors. S.A. No. 416. of 1952-D/11.2.19.57. This decision has not yet been reported : In this case the original holding was khata No. 91 having an area of 2.680 in which the dispute was only in respect of 0.090. In the original khata a major portion of the land was agricultural or horticultural land. Houses stood only on a small portion of this vast area. Thus the entire khata No. 91 was an agricultural holding. A portion of this holding (sic) as leased out for residential purposes. The question raised was whether that lease shall be governed by the Transfer of Property Act or by the Orissa Tenancy Act. Houses stood only on a small portion of this vast area. Thus the entire khata No. 91 was an agricultural holding. A portion of this holding (sic) as leased out for residential purposes. The question raised was whether that lease shall be governed by the Transfer of Property Act or by the Orissa Tenancy Act. Dealing with this question their Lordships said: The principle is clearly well settled that if out of an agricultural holding governed by the Orissa Tenancy Act a portion is leased out for non-agricultural or residential purpose, the lease should be governed by the Orissa Tenancy Act and not by the Transfer of Property Act, otherwise it will lead to an anomalous position that while the entire holding will be governed by the Orissa Tenancy Act, a part of it will be governed by the T.P. Act. They have also relied upon two Calcutta decisions already extracted above. The present case is in all fours with the Division Bench case of this Court. Since the rights and obligations of the Plaintiffs and Defendants, who are respectively landlords and tenants as defined in Explanation to Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Orissa Merged States? (Laws) Act, 1950, in relation, to the suit land which is a part of an agricultural holding, are governed by other provisions of Section 7, all suits and proceedings between them, as such, shall be instituted and tried in revenue Courts. Consequently, the present suit for eviction being between the landlord, and tenant and having been made expressly cognisible by the revenue Court, under Clause (a) to Section 7, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is clearly barred. Reliance has been placed by the Respondent on an unreported decision of this Court in S.A. No. 497/69. The question that arose for consideration there was whether a transaction of exchange for the purpose of registration was to be governed by the Bamra Revenue Rules or by the provisions of T.P. Act and it was held that since with effect from August, 1935, the Transfer of Property Act had been brought into force in the Bamra State, its provisions would apply to the transaction of exchange effected subsequent to its coming into force and not the Bamra Revenue Rules. It, therefore, did not involve any question relating to the respective rights and obligations of land lords and tenants as such, in relation to any agricultural holding or part of it and, therefore, this authority has no relevancy to the point at issue. 8. The reliefs claimed are inextrically connected with questions relating to rights and obligations of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 as landlords and tenant respectively, such as, liability of the latter to eviction, to payment of arrear rent, determination of tenancy by a notice to quit and the status of the latter upon issuance of such a notice to quit, and as the reliefs can be granted only upon determination of these questions which the civil Court cannot decide, its jurisdiction being excluded in relation to those questions, the Plaintiff is bound to be non-suited. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, on the sole ground that civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, this appeal is bound to succeed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties would bear their costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed