JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This Second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of reversal recorded by the Additional District Judge, Kullu dated July 20, 1993. 2. It appears, Jagtamba Parsad and Partap Chand, (succeeded by Durgi Devi), filed a suit for declaration that they were the owners in possession of half share of the land measuring 2.4 bighas comprised in Khasra number 562 as per jamabandi for the year 1971-72 of Phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja of Tehsil and District Kullu. They also prayed for an injunction, as a consequential relief, restraining contesting defendants Gopal Krishan and Ram Krishan, from interfering with the suit land in any manner. In the alternative, it was prayed that if defendants No. 1 and 2 forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and plaintiffs are found to be out of possession, then a decree for possession may be granted to them in respect of suit land or portion thereof, of which they may be dispossessed. 3. The case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiffs and proforma defendants were the joint owners in possession of the land in dispute in which plaintiffs had half share while the other half was owned and possessed by the proforma defendants. As the plaintiffs and proforma defendants were living in the District of Kangra, therefore, they employed defendant Gopal Krishan to look after their land on a monthly salary of rupees 150. The defendants, taking advantage of the fact that plaintiffs and proforma defendants were living away from Kullu, applied for the correction of revenue entries to the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade, Kullu alleging that they were tenants of the land. The application, however, was dismissed. According to the plaintiffs, contesting defendants were never inducted as tenants. The contesting defendants, in connivance with the revenue officials, got an entry made in the girdawari of kharif 1979 to the effect "Kashat Mutnaza Hai" and on the basis of this wrong revenue entry, have started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs without any right, title and interest. Plaintiffs fear their dispossession. 4. Contesting defendants resisted the suit. Allegations were controverted. Several pleas, including that of limitation and locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit were taken. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit land. Plaintiffs fear their dispossession. 4. Contesting defendants resisted the suit. Allegations were controverted. Several pleas, including that of limitation and locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit were taken. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit land. On merits, it was denied that defendant Jagtamba Parsad was employed on a monthly wages of rupees 150 by the plaii^iffs/to look after the suit land. It was also denied that defendants got the revenue entries changed in connivance with the revenue officials as claimed by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that there was no occasion for the defendant Gopal Krishan to have taken employment with plaintiffs on paltry sum of Rs. 150 per month. Both the contesting defendants No. 1 and 2 have sufficient property. Defendant No. 1 is a Municipal Commissioner and, therefore, there was no question of defendant No. 1 being employed by the plaintiffs. According to the contesting defendants, they were inducted as tenants by the plaintiffs on payment of fixed rent of rupees 600 per annum to the owners and in view of the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, herein after referred to as "Tenancy Act", they have become owners of the suit land. The plaintiffs and proforma defendants are neither the owners nor in possession of this land. It was pleaded that since contesting defendants are in possession of this land, therefore, there is no question of any unlawful interference by them in the suit land. It was pleaded that plaintiffs and proforma defendants living far away from Kullu, were never in occupation of this land as they were unable to cultivate the suit land. It was for this reason that they inducted the contesting defendants as tenants on a fixed rent of rupees 600 per annum. It was pleaded that defendants No. 1 and 2 have raised an orchard and structure over the suit land after having spent huge amounts to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 2. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? If so what is its correct valuation? O.P. Parties 3. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 2. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? If so what is its correct valuation? O.P. Parties 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and the defendant No. 1 was employed as a servant on monthly wages of Rs. 150 as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the defendant No. 1 was inducted as tenant of the suit land and has now become its owner as alleged? OPD 6. Relief. 6. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence, concluded that suit was within the period of limitation and was properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. Under issue Nos. 4 and 5, it was found by the learned trial Judge that plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land and that defendant No. 1 was not employed by the plaintiffs as claimed by the plaintiffs and the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants was that of a landlord and tenant. The trial Judge accordingly held that the defendants have become owners of the land in view of the provisions of the "Tenancy Act". 7. Dis-satisfied, plaintiffs carried an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge by his impugned judgment and decree, accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration that they were owners of the suit land. He also passed a decree for the possession of the suit land against the contesting defendants. 8. Aggrieved, the contesting defendants are in second appeal. 9. I have heard Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate Counsel for the defendants No. 1, 2 and 4. I have also been taken through the record and evidence by the learned Counsel. 10. Learned Additional District Judge reversing the judgment of the trial Court, took a view that the agreement between plaintiffs and defendant Gopal Krishan (Ext. PW2/A) shows that defendant Gopal Krishan was employed by the plaintiffs to look after the suit land. I have also been taken through the record and evidence by the learned Counsel. 10. Learned Additional District Judge reversing the judgment of the trial Court, took a view that the agreement between plaintiffs and defendant Gopal Krishan (Ext. PW2/A) shows that defendant Gopal Krishan was employed by the plaintiffs to look after the suit land. Learned Additional District Judge though affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court that defendants Gopal Krishan and Ram Krishan were in possession of the suit land but did not determine the capacity of such possession. 11. Referring to the revenue record, learned first Appellate Court found that revenue entries were not changed and recorded in favour of defendants in accordance with the H.P. Land Records Manual. Therefore, no presumption was attached to it. According to the learned Additional District Judge, the land in suit was a joint land of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants and Jagtamba Parshad alone had no authority to induct defendants as tenants. He concluded that the possession of the defendants over the suit land was due to the employment of defendant No.l with the plaintiffs to look after the suit land on a monthly salary of rupees 150. This employment was for a period of six months and therefore defendants were not the tenants of the suit land. He accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on the basis of the title. 12. This appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law as framed by the appellants in the memorandum of appeal. However, after having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only substantial question of law which arises in this appeal is: Whether the Civil Courts had jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. 13. It may be noticed at the out set that, so far proforma defendants are concerned, they did not contest the suit. Defendants No. 14, 17 and 18 did file written statement supporting the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that these defendants were not aware as to who inducted the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit land or whether they were tenants or not. Having filed the written statement, these defendants abstained and did not contest the suit. The other proforma defendants were ex-parte. 14. It was pleaded that these defendants were not aware as to who inducted the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit land or whether they were tenants or not. Having filed the written statement, these defendants abstained and did not contest the suit. The other proforma defendants were ex-parte. 14. So far the possession of the defendants over the suit land is concerned, there is concurrent finding of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court that contesting defendants were in possession of the suit land. The stand of the plaintiff Jagtamba Parsad (PW1) was that he employed Gopal Krishan on a monthly salary of rupees 150 to look after the suit land. An agreement was executed between the plaintiffs and Gopal Krishan which was signed by Gopal Krishan. It is his evidence that he never gave this land on tenancy to the defendants. Revenue entries, according to him, were changed in connivance with the revenue officials. In cross-examination, he admitted that he and his brothers have a 4.5 bighas of land at Dhalpur. He further admitted that out of this land, he had sold one bigha 9 biswas of land. He also stated that the agreement was confined to 2 bigha 14 biswas of land and not for the entire land. According to plaintiff Jagtamba Parsad he paid the salary to defendant No. 1 till 1980 but did not obtain any receipt. He denied the suggestion that Gopal Krishan used to pay him rent and rent was so paid till 1981. Later, in the cross-examination, he admitted that he used to receive money from Gopal Krishan in his house but Gopal Krishan cultivated the land in capacity as servant. In his own words, "I used to get money in the house of Gopal. I am resident of Paoprola and permanently settled there. It is correct that Gopal used to cultivate the land as I had kept him servant". Plaintiff went on to state that he used to give money to Gopal Krishan to buy seeds but was ignorant about the production of the vegetable. According to him, there are fruit plants on the land which were planted by Gopal Krishan but he had asked Gopal Krishan to purchase these plants and plants were so planted in the year 1977-78. He admitted that pits of the plants were got prepared by Gopal at his own expense. According to him, there are fruit plants on the land which were planted by Gopal Krishan but he had asked Gopal Krishan to purchase these plants and plants were so planted in the year 1977-78. He admitted that pits of the plants were got prepared by Gopal at his own expense. He is also not aware how much amount is spent to prepare the pit. He was unable to state the numbers of the plants in the orchard. 15. Luxmi Kant is the scribe of the agreement Exhibit PW2/A. According to him, he scribed this agreement at the instance of both the parties. In cross-examination, he admitted that agreement Exhibit PW2/A was made for six months regarding 7-8 bighas of land. It is his evidence that his house is adjacent to the suit land. Plaintiff-Jagtamba Prasad, according to this witness, came to him after six months and told him that plaintiffs wanted to sell this land and thereafter, plaintiffs gave to defendants about two and half bighas of land on tenancy. He was not aware of the rent payable to the plaintiffs. He admitted that the defendants have raised orchard on this land. 16. Gopal Krishan, defendant, (DW1) stated his case and said that plaintiffs initially gave him the entire land for management for six months and thereafter, plaintiffs came to him and said that (defendants) can keep 2 bighas 14 biswas of land as tenant and rest of the land he would sell. The rent settled was rupees 600 per annum and he had been paying that rent regularly till 1981. In cross-examination by the plaintiffs, he stated that he had filed an application for the correction of the revenue entries after he was inducted as tenant. This application was dismissed in default. Dhale Ram and Anil supported the defendants and stated that they were the tenants of the suit land. 17. Exhibit PW2/A is a writing executed by Gopal Krishan. According to this writing, as Jagtamba Parsad was resident of Paprola, therefore, Gopal Krishan undertook to look after their entire land at Dhalpur in Kullu and cultivate the same as an employee. He also undertook to keep the accounts. This agreement was for six months. The writing was executed on October 23, 1973 and, therefore this agreement came to an end in March, 1974. He also undertook to keep the accounts. This agreement was for six months. The writing was executed on October 23, 1973 and, therefore this agreement came to an end in March, 1974. Indeed, no steps were taken by the plaintiffs to get back the land from defendant Gopal Krishan who continued to be in possession of the land and cultivate it. 18. It is the positive case of the defendants that out of the land of the plaintiffs in Dhalpur, which was more than 4 bighas, he was inducted tenant only in the suit land measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas. The evidence on record on probability factors does not prove the plea of the plaintiffs that defendant Gopal Krishan was engaged as servant to cultivate the land. To start with, it appears, there was loose arrangement of the plaintiffs with the defendant No. 1 to look after and cultivate the entire land which was more than 4 bighas out of which 2 bighas 14 biswas was left with the defendants. The defendants claims that the plaintiff inducted them as tenants. 19. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Civil Courts were competent to decide this question after having found defendants to be in possession of this land with supporting entries in khasra-girdawaris showing them as tenants on payment of rent of rupees 600 per annum to the owners. 20. Tenancy Act was enacted to unify the various laws relating to the tenancy as in force in Himachal Pradesh and to achieve the object of land reforms and also to remove disparities as is apparent from the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Bill. Section 2(17) defines tenant to mean: "a person who holds land under a landowner, and is, or but for a contract to the contrary would be liable to pay rent for that land to that landowner, and includes— (i) a sub-tenant, and (ii) the predecessors or successors in interest of a tenant or a subtenant, .......but does not include— (a) ................................................................................................... (b).................................................................................................." 21. Section 2(10) defines "landowner" a person defined as such in the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 or Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, as the case may be, and shall also include the predecessors or successors in interest of the landowner. Chapter X deals with the acquisition of proprietary rights by tenants other than the occupancy tenants. (b).................................................................................................." 21. Section 2(10) defines "landowner" a person defined as such in the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 or Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, as the case may be, and shall also include the predecessors or successors in interest of the landowner. Chapter X deals with the acquisition of proprietary rights by tenants other than the occupancy tenants. The Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975, hereinafter referred to as "the rules" deal with the acquisition of proprietary rights. Part-V of the rules, that is, from Rules 21 to 37 deals with the acquisition of proprietary rights by non occupancy tenants. Section 104 provides for the acquisition of ownership right by the tenants other than the occupancy tenants. Section 104 may be reproduced for convenience: "104. Part-V of the rules, that is, from Rules 21 to 37 deals with the acquisition of proprietary rights by non occupancy tenants. Section 104 provides for the acquisition of ownership right by the tenants other than the occupancy tenants. Section 104 may be reproduced for convenience: "104. Right of tenant other than occupancy tenant to acquire, interests of landowner.— (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, contract, custom or usage for the time being in force, on and from the commencement of this Act, if the whole of the land of the landowner is under non-occupancy tenants, and if such a landowner has not exercised the right of resumption of tenancy land at any time since January 26, 1955, under any law as in force: (i) such a land owner shall be entitled to resume before the date to be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette and in the manner prescribed, either one and a half acres of irrigated land or three acres of unirrigated land under tenancy from one or more than one tenants for his personal cultivation and the right, title and interest (including contingent interest, if any) of the tenant or tenants, as the case may be, there from shall stand extinguished free from all encumbrances created by the tenant or tenants to that extent: Provided that if the tenant has taken loan from the State Government, a co-operative society or a bank for the improvement of tenancy land which the landowner has resumed under clause (i) or (ii) and has used such loan for the improvement of such land, then the landowner shall be liable to repay the outstanding amount of such loan and to the extent actually used for the said purpose and interest thereon to the State Government or to the co-operative society or a bank, as the case may be proportionate to the improved land resumed by him : Provided further that the landowner shall not be entitled to resume from a tenant more than one half of the tenancy land; (ii) in case the landowner holds less than one and a half acres of irrigated land or three acres unirrigated land in his personal cultivation, he shall be entitled to resume tenancy land only to make up the land under his personal cultivation to the extent of one and a half acres of irrigated land or three acres of unirrigated land, as the case may be, subject to the other conditions laid down in this section; (iii) the right, title and interest in the rest of the tenancy land of the landowner, who is entitled to resume land under clauses (i) and (ii), shall vest in the tenant free from all encumbrances with effect from the date to be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette; (iv) in case the land under the tenancy is partly irrigated and partly unirrigated and the landowner intends to resume land of both these classes, he shall be entitled to do so in the ratio and manner to be prescribed; (v) in the event of any dispute between the landowner and the tenant with regard to the selection of the land for resumption, the first right of selection of land shall be that of the tenant who may exercise this right in the prescribed manner and before the date to be notified by the State Government in this respect in the official Gazette; (vi) in case the tenant fails to exercise his right of selection of land by the date notified under clause (v), the Land Reforms Officer shall determine his share after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. In such a case also, the tenant shall be given the first choice to select the land. (2) Where the landowner does not cultivate the land resumed under sub-section (1) personally within one year from taking possession thereof, then such land shall vest in the State Government on payment of an amount at the rate of ninety-six times the land revenue plus rates and cesses and such land shall be disposed of by the State Government in such manner as may be prescribed. In such an event the first right to get such land shall be that of the tenant from whom the land was resumed by the landowner. (3) All rights, title and interest (including as contingent interest, if any) of a landowner other than a landowner entitled to resume land under sub-section (1) shall be extinguished and all such rights, title and interest shall with effect from the date to be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette vest in the tenant free from all encumbrances : Provided that if a tenancy is created after the commencement of this Act, the provision of this sub-section shall apply immediately after the creation of such tenancy. (4) Whenever a dispute arises whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner, is a tenant or not, the burden of proving that such a person is not a tenant of the landowner shall be on the latter. (5) The landowner, where rights, title and interest are extinguished under this section, shall be entitled to receive an amount.... either in lump sum or..... in such number of instalments...... as may be prescribed : Provided........ (6) Save as otherwise provided in Section 114, every decision of the Land Reforms Officer, under this section shall be binding on all persons claiming an interest in a holding notwithstanding the fact that any such person has not appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Land Reforms Officer or any other revenue authority. (7) ................................................................................................... (6) Save as otherwise provided in Section 114, every decision of the Land Reforms Officer, under this section shall be binding on all persons claiming an interest in a holding notwithstanding the fact that any such person has not appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Land Reforms Officer or any other revenue authority. (7) ................................................................................................... (8) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (9), nothing contained in sub-sections (1) to (6) shall apply to a tenancy of a landowner during the period mentioned for each category of such landowners in sub-section (9) who,— (a) is a minor or unmarried woman, or if married, divorced or separated from husband or widow; or (b) is permanently incapable of cultivating land by reason of any physical or mental infirmity; or (c) is a serving member of the Armed Forces; or (d) is the father of the person who is serving in the Armed Forces up to the extent of inheritable share of such a member of the Armed Forces, on the date of his joining the Armed Forces, to be declared by his father in the prescribed manner. (9) In the case of landowners, mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (8) the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (6) shall not apply, 22. Perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 104 shows that all rights, title and interest of the landlord, other than the landlord entitled to resume land under Section 104(1), extinguishes in respect of the tenancies other than the occupancy tenancies on the coming into force of the Act and such right, title and interest vested in tenants free from all encumbrances. The proviso to sub-section (3) stipulates that if a tenancy is created after the commencement of the Act, the provision of sub-section (3) shall apply immediately after the creation of such tenancy. In other words, if a person is inducted as an tenant after the coming into force of the Act, i.e. 2.2.1974, then such tenants acquire all rights, title and interests of the landlord, free from all encumbrances immediately after the creation of such tenancy. Sub-section (4) provides that if a dispute arise whether a person cultivating the land of a landlord, is a tenant or not, the burden of proving that such a person is not a tenant of the landowner shall be on the latter. 23. Sub-section (4) provides that if a dispute arise whether a person cultivating the land of a landlord, is a tenant or not, the burden of proving that such a person is not a tenant of the landowner shall be on the latter. 23. The entire question of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain a dispute between a tenant and landlord was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Chuniya Devi v. Jindu Ram, 1991 (1) Sim. L.C. 223. After noticing the provisions of Sections 104, 105, 106, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115 of the Tenancy Act along with the rules, the Full Bench concluded that any inquiry by a Civil Court on the question was barred by legislature by specifically providing such bar in Sections 112 and 115 read with Section 104 of the Act and the Rules. The Full Bench speaking through V.K. Mehrotra, J. noted that "there are bound to be occasions where the landowner may come out with a plea that the person cultivating his land is not a tenant. The person who actually cultivating the land, would be interested in asserting that he is in occupation as tenant". Such a dispute, held the Full Bench, has to be decided by the authorities contemplated under Chapter-X of the Tenancy Act read with the rules and civil courts cannot go into that question. Full Bench noticed Rule 29 framed under Section 117 of the Tenancy Act which provides for the determination of the dispute under sub-section (4) of Section 104. Rule 29 reads : "29. Determination of disputes under sub-section (4) of Section 204.—If there is a dispute regarding the entries of the land records the Land Reforms Officer, in his capacity as an Assistant Collector, of the First Grade, shall decide the dispute under sub-section (4) of Section 104 in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887) or the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (6 of 1954) as the case may be. The disputes of such cases will be determined on a summary inquiry on the files." 24. The disputes of such cases will be determined on a summary inquiry on the files." 24. Careful reading of this rule shows that in case of a dispute regarding the entries in the land records, it is the Land Reforms Officer, in his capacity as Assistant Collector of the 1st Grade, who shall decide such dispute under sub-section (4) of Section 104 of the Tenancy Act in accordance with the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act. Such a dispute is to be determined in summary inquiry after due notice to the other party under Rule 35. 25. The Full Bench in Chuniya held that sub-section (4) of Section 104 is not merely a rule of laying down the burden of proving that the person is not a tenant of the land owner on the land but implicit in it is that a dispute may arise whether a person cultivating the land of the land owner is a tenant or not, When proceedings were in progress under Section Chapter X of the Act, such a dispute has to be decided by the authorities under the Act and not by the Civil Courts. Para 39 of the judgment reads: "39. True it is that Rule 29 contemplates determination of disputes of the nature contemplated by Section 104(4) of the Act on a summary inquiry on the file, yet, it cannot be overlooked that the dispute is envisaged about the question whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner, is a tenant or not; as is clear from the language in which Section 104(4) is couched. The Legislature must be deemed to know its own mind when enacting a provision of this nature. It is not possible to say, as was canvassed before us by Shri B.K. Malhotra, that Section 104(4) only lays down a rule of evidence when it says that "the burden of proving that such a person is not a tenant of the landowner shall be on the latter" whenever a dispute arises whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner is a tenant or not. It is implicit in subsection (4) of Section 104 that the Legislature envisaged that a dispute may arise whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner is a tenant or not, when proceedings were in progress under Chapter X, and provided that it shall be decided by the authorities contemplated under this Chapter who shall require the landowner to establish that a person cultivating his land is not a tenant". 26. In para 40 of the judgment, it was held, in no uncertain terms, that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the question whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner is a tenant or not. Para 40 reads : "40. Any enquiry by a Civil Court on the question was barred by the Legislature by specifically providing in Sections 112 and 115, both concurring in Chapter X, that the validity of any order made under the Chapter shall not be called in question in any Court and that the order shall be final except as expressly provided in the Chapter. The Legislature knew its mind fully well. Where it wanted a dispute to be determined by the Civil Court, it provided so in Chapter X itself. One has only to look at Sections 107 and 109 (2). Not only that the Legislature ruled out any determination by a Civil Court, by necessary implication, of other matters, it expressly said so in Sections 112 and 115." 27. An argument was raised before the Full Bench in Chuniya that the Civil Courts will have jurisdiction where there is a dispute about the status of a person being tenant. The Full Bench repelled this argument thus : "The acceptance of the plea would negate the accomplishment of the object of securing to the actual tiller proprietary rights in the land under his cultivation as a measure of land reforms envisaged in the Act" The Full Bench concluded : "We have attempted to do it in the present case and have come to the conclusion that the Legislature has envisaged a complete Code in the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1971, inter alia, for effectuating its purpose of land reforms and has ruled out determination of any question connected therewith by the Civil Court." 28. In the present case, admittedly, the defendants Gopal Krishan and Ram Krishan were in cultivating possession of the suit land. In the present case, admittedly, the defendants Gopal Krishan and Ram Krishan were in cultivating possession of the suit land. They claimed that they were inducted as tenants by the plaintiffs and had become owner of the suit land in view of the provisions of "the Tenancy Act". 29. In my opinion, irrespective of the merits of the case, it was not open to the Civil Courts to decide such a question in view of the law laid down in Chuniya. The Full Bench in para 44 of the judgment reasoned thus : "44. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in the matter of determination of question whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner is his tenant or not for purposes of Chapter X, is both reasonable and understandable. Permitting such a question to be determined by the Civil Court also would have introduced an element of unpredictability, spread over a long period while the matter was under adjudication before the Civil Court at the trial or an appellate stage, which could have made the effective implementation of measures of land reform aimed at by the Act, uncertain. The Legislature could legitimately think of ruling out such a situation. It has done so by excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court expressly in that matter". 30. The inevitable conclusion is that the Civil Courts, in view of the facts of the case, had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants Krishan Gopal regarding the status of defendant as tenant of the suit land. Such a dispute could only be determined by the Land Reforms Officer exercising the powers of Assistant Collector in terms of Rule 29 read with Section 104(4) of the Act. The question is accordingly decided. 31. In result, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu and that of learned trial Court are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff shall stand dismissed. It will, however, be open to the parties to have their dispute settled by a competent authority under the law. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -