JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The view of the Court below that no appeal lay to it cannot be supported. The plaintiffs-respondents brought this suit against the appellant in the Revenue Court for recovery of the rent of a plot No. 388. They alleged that they were holders of miscellaneous property (hakiat mutfarrik) and sir lands, and that the defendant was their sub-tenant in respect of the land in question in the year 1310 Fasli. The defence was that the defendant was not tenant of the plaintiffs but that he him-self was the principal tenant, that the plaintiffs had no right to the land in question, and that under an arbitration award the defendant was in proprietary possession of the land. The Court of first instance found against the defendant, and this decision was affirmed by the Collector to whom an appeal lay, the case having been decided by an Assistant Collector of the second class. From the decision of the Collector an appeal was preferred, to the learned Judge. He was of opinion that no appeal lay to him. The ground for his opinion was that the plaintiffs themselves had not claimed any proprietary right in the land but were only cultivators, and that therefore no question of proprietary title arose in the case. In so holding the learned Judge was in my opinion in error. There existed between the parties a question of proprietary title regarding the land, in respect of which rent was claimed. It is true that proprietary title was not claimed in the sense that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land as landlords, although they said that it was their sir land. Assuming as the learned Judge holds that they were cultivators, the question was whether the plaintiffs were the cultivators of the land, or the defendant was the principal cultivator of it. Therefore, as between the plaintiffs and the defendant there was a question of the ownership of the particular holding, that is to say, of their title as cultivators of it. This was a question of proprietary title and the learned Judge ought to have entertained the appeal. I accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below, and remand the case, to that Court under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure’ for trial on the merits. Costs will follow the event.