1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.5.86 passed by the Asstt. District Judge, Jorhat, in Title Appeal No. 61 of 1982, reversing the decree passed in Title Suit No. 1/79 by the Munsiff No. 2, Jorhat. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit (TS 1/79) in the Court of the second Munsiff, Jorhat for declaration of right, title and interest and for khas possession and compensation in respect of 11 Bigha 17½ Lechas of land under Dag Nos. 78 and 79, periodic Patta No. 18 of No. 2 Dewrigaon, Baligaon, Jorhat. His case, inter alia, was that the land described in the schedule of the plaint belonged to him and he was in possession of the same. The said land was given to the father of the second defendant on Khandua basis and on his death the second defendant was in posses­sion of the land, on behalf of the plaintiff's father. In the year 1970 the plaintiff by an unregistered deed of agreement gave eight Bighas of Southern side of the land to first defendant on Khandua basis strictly for a period of one year on yearly rent of Rs. 150/-. The defendant failed to pay the rent and hence the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit (TS 40/71) in the Court of the Munsiff, Jorhat for recovery of the rent. The Munsiff decreed the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff sold 3 Bigha, 3 Kama and 12½ lechas of land to one Biren Bora by a registered sale deed in the year 1974. Thereafter, Sri Biren Bora trespassed into the suit land and dispossessed the second defendant, through whom the plaintiff was possessing the land. The second defen­dant filed a petition and a proceeding under section 145 Cr.PC was started in respect of the said land, which ended by giving declaration of possession to the defendant. On revision also the appellant could not be successful. The plaintiff stated that the has right, title and interest over the suit land and the first defendant was never a rayat under the plaintiff and the Rayati Khatian was obtained in collusion with the Lot Mandal. In the said suit, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of the suit for possession. However, what decree he had prayed was not specifically "mentioned. 3. The appellant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the allegations made therein. In the said suit, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of the suit for possession. However, what decree he had prayed was not specifically "mentioned. 3. The appellant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the allegations made therein. After hearing the parties, the Munsiff dismissed the suit on 30.8.82. Against that, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal (TA 61/82) in the Court of the Asst. District Judge, Jorhat. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the trial court The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by under section 66 of the Assam (Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971. Section 66 reads as follows : "66 Matters exempted from cognizance of Civil Court: Except where otherwise expressly provided for in this Act or the Rules made there­ under, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in any of the following matters,- (a)... (b)... (c) Preparation of record of rights under Chapter X and preparation, signing, or alternation of any document contained therein;" 4. Regarding the inclusion of the appellant's name as Rayat under the owner, definitely Clause (c) of Section 66 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 would apply. The first appellate Court, however, repelled the finding by observing as follows: " ..As per Ext 6 Defendant No. 1 was allowed to occupy the land only for one year. So it appears that the Ryoti Khatian Ext. 15 and Ext. 17 was not prepared U/s. 55 of the Tenancy Act and even if it was granted, it was bad as dispute regarding possession was pending in Criminal Court. So I am of opinion that jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be ousted." Hence this second appeal. 5. The substantial question of law formulated in this appeal at the time of admission is as follows : "Whether the finding of the learned Court below that the appellant was not a tenant was based on misconstruction of Section 55 and 58 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971." 6. I have heard Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.P. Kataky, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Mahanta submits that the Asstt. I have heard Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.P. Kataky, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Mahanta submits that the Asstt. District Judge acted without jurisdiction by decreeing the suit holding that the appellant was not a tenant under the plaintiff-respondent, in as much as, this is beyond the scope of the Civil Court as it is specifically barred by section 66 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971. 7. Mr. B.P. Kataky, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and strenuously argues that even though the question of preparation of record of rights cannot be agitated in a Civil Court in view of the specific bar under section 66, but if the relationship of the landlord and tenant is disputed, definitely the declaration can be given to that effect by the Civil Court. In support of his submission, Mr Kataky has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Nur Islam and others v. Troloikhya Nath Hazarika, (1989) 1 GLR 187. This court in the said decision observed that in a case where a declaration is sought for regarding the relationship between landlord and tenant, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to give declaration regarding the status of the owner and the person who claims to be the tenant. In the said decision, this Court has referred to a decision of a Division Bench in State of Assam v-Sifat All, AIR 1967 A&N, 3, where this Court held that -" This does not debar the Civil court from entertaining suits based on title to the property. The plaintiff's case is that the periodic patta in their favour creates a right of the plaintiffs in the property and that right has been affected by the order of the Commissioner. This encroachment on the right of the plaintiffs gives them a cause of action to bring suit for declaration of their right..." 8. The decision referred to by Mr. Kataky relates to a declaration to the status of the landlord and tenant. When the relationship between the landlord and tenant is in dispute and declaration is necessary to that effect, definitely the Civil Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the matter. I have gone through the plaint. In the plaint, the Respondent -plaintiff simply asked for a declaration of possession and confirmation of title and compensation. When the relationship between the landlord and tenant is in dispute and declaration is necessary to that effect, definitely the Civil Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the matter. I have gone through the plaint. In the plaint, the Respondent -plaintiff simply asked for a declaration of possession and confirmation of title and compensation. Nowhere, in the said plaint, the respondent has sought for a declaration stating that the status of the respondent and appellant was in dispute and declaration was necessary to that effect. That being the position, I do not find that the case referred to by Mr. Kataky has any application in the instant case. 9. Admittedly, as stated above, the preparation of record of right under Chapter X comes within the scope of Section 66 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to give the relief as asked for. It may be mentioned here that the Respondent-plaintiff only played for his title and for confirmation of title and compensation etc. The appellant-defen­dant never disputed the respondent-plaintiff's title to the property. That being the position, the respondent-plaintiff is not entitled to get any declaration. The Asstt. District Judge, however, totally over looked that aspect of the matter and came to an erroneous finding. 10. In view of the above, I hold that there is sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned judgment dated 27.5.86 passed by the Asstt. District Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 61/82 and restore the judgment and decree dated 30.8.82 passed by the Second Munsiff, Jorhat in Title Suit No. 1/79. 11. In the result the appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.