Amitav Banerji, J.

This second appeal by the Plaintiffs raises two interesting questions of law. The first is, whether the deposit made by a sirdar for the acquisition of the privilege of transfer in respect of the entire sirdari holdings u/s 3 of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949 enures for the benefit of all the co-sirdars as well, when the applicant expressly claimed the privilege exclusively for himself. The second question is, whether the suit for the partition of a joint holding in which one party had bhumidhari rights and the other sirdari rights lay in the civil court or in the revenue court.

2. To appreciate these questions, it would be necessary to refer to the case of the parties. Mathura Prasad, Ram Autar and Bisheshwar Dayal, Plaintiffs Nos. 1, 8 and 9 exclusively claimed that they had a half share in the bhumidhari holding which they had sold to Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 7 by a sale deed dated 11th of May, 1957. They claimed that they were in separate possession but in case the court took the view that there had been no partition, they prayed for a partition of their half share. It was also pleaded that the Plaintiff No. 1 and Defe