JUDGMENT : BLAIR, J.:— This is a reference from the District Judge of Aligarh under section 195 of Act No. II of 1901. Under the provisions of that section, which in our opinion is strictly applicable, we entertain this reference. It permits the District Court in case of doubt whether any suit, application, or appeal should be filed in a Civil or a Revenue Court to submit the record with a statement of its reasons for doubt to the High Court, The appeal in question arose in a suit in which Shamla and Parma asked for the ejectment of one Chidda on the allegation that they were occupancy tenants of the land in suit, and that Chidda was their sub-tenant. Chidda having raised as defence the plea that he was not the sub-tenant of the plaintiffs' nor were they occupancy tenants, and he having asserted that his father Dal Chand was the proprietor of the land in suit and as such proprietor, held the land as khudkasht, the court of original jurisdiction, purporting to act under the provisions of section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, entered the name of Dal Chand as co-defendant to the suit. 2. In our opinion a question of proprietary title was in issue in the court of first instance as well as in the court of first appeal. There was no denial, it is true, by the plaintiffs of Dal Chand's-title to a proprietary interest in the property But there was a denial that by virtue of their proprietorship he held possession off the land. Of course if that were so the plaintiffs are not occupancy tenants, and they were not in possession. It seems to us that the case involves a question of proprietary right, because the defendant and his father, Dal Chand, claim that Dal Chand held the land by virtue of proprietary right. That being so, the appeal in our opinion falls within the purview of section 177, clause (e) of Act No. II of 1901. The answer to the reference is that the court of the District Judge is the proper court of appeal. We therefore order that the District Judge do proceed with the appeal.