The only point that arises for consideration in this second appeal relates to the scope and effect of the provisions of section 66 of the Assam (Tempo­rarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The contention of the appellants is that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit having regard to the aforesaid provision. The appellants were defendants in a suit filed by the respondents in the Court of the Munsiff No. 2 at Guwahati for confirmation of their possession over the suit land and injunction. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were the absolute owners of the suit land measuring 1 bigha 3 kathas and 3 lechas. Sometime in the year 1973-74, the plaintiffs' father, who was alive at that time, allowed the defendants to plant paddy seedling over 2 kathas of land. The plaintiffs thereafter asked the defendants to vacate the suit land as it was required by them for their own use. The defendants did not do so. On the other hand, they tried to plant seedlings next year also thereby clouding the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the said land. The plaintiffs under the circumstances filed the suit for declaration and confirmation of their possession. The defendants, who are the appellants before this Court, contested the suit. Their case was that they had been possessing the suit land, planting trees and cultivating the land as tenants from the time of the plaintiffs' father. According to them, they were in such possession for more than 25 years and that they had acquired permanent tenancy right. It was also contended by the defendants that they had already secured khatian for the suit land. As such, the plaintiffs had no right to recover possession of the suit land from them. It was also contended by the defendants that the suit was barred in view of the provisions of section 66 of the Act. The trial Court held that the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land was not in dispute. The plaintiffs in course of trial also proved their possession. It was also contended by the defendants that the suit was barred in view of the provisions of section 66 of the Act. The trial Court held that the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land was not in dispute. The plaintiffs in course of trial also proved their possession. So far as the claim of the defendants is concerned, it was held from the evidence adduced by the defendants that it was clear that the defendants did not acquire any tenancy light over the suit land as claimed by them and, as such, they were not protected either under section 5 or under section 66 of the Act. In view of the finding regarding title and pc ssession in favour of the plaintiffs the suit was decreed by the trial Court in their favour. The trial Court, in its judgment, also considered the fact of issue of draft khatian in favour of the defendants. The Court held that the draft khatian in question having been obtained by the defendants after the institution of the suit, it cannot, in absence of any other evidence, by itself prove the occupancy right of the defendants which the defendants in the instant case failed to do. The draft khatian cannot oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide the dispute in question. The defendants went in appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. The Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati who heard the appeal affirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The defendants have now come up in second appeal before this Court. The point for consideration is whether the Court below had jurisdiction to entertain the suit having regard to the provisions of section 66 of the Act. Section 66 of the Act reads as follows :- "66. Matters exempted from cognizance of Civil Court-Except where otherwise expressly provided for in this Act or the Rules made thereunder, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in any of the following matters, (a) Claims to enhancement, reduction or alteration of rent of holdings ; (b) Claims to deposit rent; (c) Preparation of record of rights under Chapter X and preparation, signing, or alteration of any document contained therein ; (d) Maintenance of record-of-rights ; (e) Claims to restoration of possession under set ion 54A. In these matters, the jurisdiction shall only be with the Revenue Court or officer as the case may be." In may be observed that clause (e) of section 66 was not there in the original section. It was inserted by Assam Act XVII of 1974 with effect from 11.6.74. A plain reading of the section itself shows that it deals with matters exempted from cognizance of civil Court. It says in clear terms that no civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in any of matters specified therein. Five matters have been specified in clauses (a) to (e) thereof. It has also been specifically provided that in all these matters the jurisdiction shall only be with the revenue Court or officer, as the case my be. The law in regard to bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court is well-settled by a catena of decisions. The civil Courts have jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Section 66 of the Act extracted above is the relevant provision which takes away the jurisdiction of civil Courts to try a suit in matters specified therein. If a dispute falls under any of the five matters specified in this section the civil Court will have no jurisdiction to try the same. In all other matters it will have the jurisdiction. It is, therefore, to be decided whether the dispute in the instant case is covered by any of the matters specified in section 66 of the Act or not. On a reading of section 66, it is evident that the matters referred to therein pertain to claims relating to the amount of rent or the deposit thereof and disputes regarding preparation of records of rights and maintenance of records. The claims to restoration of possession under section 54A of the Act have also been included within the list of matters falling under section 66 of the Act. A careful consideration of the five categories of claims of disputes speci­fied in section 66 clearly goes to show that a dispute about the status of a person in regard to the land does not fall within the purview of the said section. A careful consideration of the five categories of claims of disputes speci­fied in section 66 clearly goes to show that a dispute about the status of a person in regard to the land does not fall within the purview of the said section. None of the matters specified in section 66 of the Act pertain to a dispute as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Such dispute, therefore, has to be decided in a suit in a civil Court. The revenue Court or the officers under the Act are not competent to try and decide such disputes. Reference may be made in this connection to a decision of the Supreme Court in Magiti Sasamal vs. Pandab Bissoi, AIR 1962 SC 547 . In this case also the question for determination before the Supreme Court was whether the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide disputes between the parties as landlord and tenant was barred in view of the prohibition contained in section 8 (1) of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 (Act III of 1948). On inter­pretation of the said section, it was held that the said section did not cover serious disputes relating to the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. It was observed that if such a dispute is intended to be tried by the Collector, the Legislature would have provided for a formal enquiry and would have prescribed appropriate appeals. Following the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and on a careful perusal of the scheme and contents of section 66, I am of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred in the instant case and the view taken by the Courts below is correct. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.