JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Bankura, dated the 26th August 1898, This decision was passed in a rent suit and the learned pleader for the Respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal to the effect that under sec. 163 of the Bengal Tenancy Act no second appeal lies to this Court we are of opinion, however, that a second appeal does lie under the proviso to chat section, because we think that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court has dealt with a question of some interest in land between parties having conflicting claims thereto. The facts are that the Plaintiff says that he is the tenant of a certain area of land, which he holds at a panchaki rent under the zemindar Joy Chandra Roy; and he further alleges that the Defendant is the sub-tenant of this land. The Defendant, on the other hand, says that he is in occupation of this land under the zemindar Joy Chandra Roy, and that he is not the Plaintiff's sub-tenant. 2. Now, the District Judge has decided against the Plaintiff. He has so far as we can see, found that the Plaintiff has not made out his title as tenant of this land. Therefore it follows, we think, that under the proviso to sec. 153 a second appeal lies in this case. 3. Turning now to the merits of the case, we regret to say that the judgment of the learned Judge is not at all an intelligible one, and that we are unable to apprehend exactly what the Judge means to decide. We think, that the judgment is not one such as we are entitled to expect in a case of this nature : It should have been a judgment complete in itself and one which we should have been able to understand without reference to any other documents ; and moreover that it should not have been a judgment open to the various interpretations which have been put upon it in the course of the argument before us. The judgment begins by saying:-- "In this case a decree has been given for rent in kind on an oral lease." Now, that evidently refers to the lease which the Plaintiff alleges he gave to the Defendant. 4. The judgment begins by saying:-- "In this case a decree has been given for rent in kind on an oral lease." Now, that evidently refers to the lease which the Plaintiff alleges he gave to the Defendant. 4. Then the Judge goes on to say:-- "The only question is whether the Plaintiff is an intermediate tenant. The Defendant-Appellant denies this and I do not think the evidence can be said to support it. There was only an oral lease, when the law requires it to be put in writing and registered for legal purposes." But, in the first place, we cannot understand to which lease the Judge refers in this passage, and whether he is speaking of the Plaintiff's lease, that is, the lease under which the Plaintiff alleges that he holds the land from the zemindar, or whether he refers to the lease which he asserts that he gave to the Defendant for these lands. And moreover we think that the statement of the Judge that the lease must be in writing and registered for legal purposes, is an incorrect proposition of law. There may be some instances in which a lease must be in writing and registered ; but it is not correct to say that in all cases the lease must be in writing and must be registered. And it is further the case that a tenant can prove his tenancy without proving his lease, even if he has any. We may refer as an authority for this proposition to the case of Lala Surabh Narain Lal and others v. Catherine Sophia (1896) 1 C. W. N. 248 . 5. In these circumstances we must set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and remand the case to it for a proper decision of this appeal. The learned District Judge must first deal with the question of the Plaintiff's title. 6. If the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has no title, then the suit should be dismissed; but if he finds that he has title, then he should deal with the further question of whether the Defendant is his sub-tenant in respect of the land or not; and he should dispose of the case accordingly. The costs will abide the result.