1. This revision is directed against an order of remand whereby the Additional District Judge, Rewa, has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and has remanded the case to it for proceeding under Section 221 of the Vindhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1933 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The petitioner's suit is for declaration of the, possession and mandatory injunction in respect of certain land, which was released in favour of the defendant in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The plaintiff claims to be a tenant and therefore, entitled to its possession. The relationship of the parties is as follows:-

Raghunandan Singh, Daulatsingh, Bishesarsingh and Mst. Kailsuwa are all dead. The plaintiff's case is that as the land belonged to Raghunandan Singh, he is the sole tenant and entitled to possession of the suit land.

3. The defendant's case is that Raghunandan Singh and Bajrangsingh were joint. Daulatsingh separated in the life time of Raghunandan Singh. Thereafter, Raghunandan Singh, Bajrangsingh and Mst. Kailsuwa became joint tenants, although the settlement Patta was in the name of Raghunandan Singh alone. Raghunandan Singh gave the suit land to the defendant as a Shikmi (sub-tenant).

4. The suit was instituted on 20 December 1958. It was dismissed on 12 November 1959. The plaintiff appealed. His appeal was allowed and the case was remanded for a fresh trial. This time, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant took an appeal, which has been disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewa, by the order under revision. He bas held that an issue relating to sub tenancy ought to have been framed and that issue should have been referred by the Civil Court to the Revenue Court under Section 221 of the Vindhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953. As this was not done, he has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and ordered a remand to it with the direction that the record should be submitted to the revenue Court for the decision of that issue only and thereafter to decide the suit afresh.

5. Section 221 (1) of the Vindhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act reads thus:-

"221. When civil Courts to refer issue to revenue Courts-(1) If in any suit relating to an agricultural holding instituted in a civil Court the defendant pleads that he holds such land as a tenant or a sub-tenant of the plaintiff, the civil Court shall frame an issue about the plea of tenancy or sub-tenancy and submit the record to the appropriate revenue Court for the decision of that issue only."

The other sub-sections of that section provide for the procedure to be followed subsequent to the reference.

6. The first question is whether the defendant's plea really falls within the purview of section 221 of the Act. It is contended by Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff, that before the procedure under section 221 of the Act can be resorted to, it must be shown that the defendant bas pleaded that he holds such land as a tenant or sub-tenant of the plaintiff. The argument is that in the present case the defendant has not pleaded that he is a sub-tenant of the plaintiff. His plea is that he was a sub-tenant of Raghunandan Singh. The learned Additional District Judge has relied on the explanatory provision contained in section 2 (2) of the Act. It runs thus:-

"All words and expressions used to denote the possessor of any right, title or interest in land shall be deemed to include predecessors and successors in right, title or interest of such person."

In my opinion, this explanation is of no avail to the defendant. This explanation is confined to "words and expressions" which are used in the Act to denote "the possessor of any right, title or interest in the land." This explanation obviously applies to a person who is "possessor" of any right, title or interest; for instance, grove holder, Pachpan-plaintalis tenant. Pattedar tenant, special tenant, sub-tena