JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J.:— The respondents brought a suit against the appellant, Chajmal Das, under section 142 of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act, 1901, to contest a distraint. The suit was dismissed by an Assistant Collector of the second class. The plaintiffs appealed to the Collector, who reversed the decree, of the first Court and decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant the learned Additional Judge confirmed the Collector's appellate decree. As a question of proprietary title was in issue’ in the first appellate Court and was a matter in issue in the appeal to the District Judge, an appeal to the lower Court lay-under section 180, clause (2) of the Act, and an appeal lies to this Court under section 182 of the Act. The respondents are not represented. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents was that the defendant, Chajmal Das, who had distressed their crops, was not; their landholder, but was only an agent of the real landholder. It is a remarkable circumstance that nowhere in the plaint do the plaintiffs say who the real landholder is. The learned Additional Judge threw out the defendants' appeal on the strength of section 31, clause (5) of the N.W.P. and Oudh Land Revenue Act, 190.1. In my opinion, the Court below was wrong. The provision relied on is a new provision introduced by Act No. III of 1901. No such provision was in the old Act. Hud the defendant obtained possession of the property after Act No. III of 1901 came into force, the section relied on might have been applicable. But the case of the defendant is that he has been in proprietary possession for GO years. The section relied on, therefore cannot affect the right of distraint given to the landholder by section 119, clause (2) of the Rent Act. I must therefore decree this appeal, and as the lower Court has disposed of the case on this ground alone, I remand the case to that Court under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure with direction to re-admit the appeal under its original number in the register and dispose of it on the merits. 2. I take this opportunity of pointing out that the view entertained by the Collector that the decision of the Revenue Court on an application for correction of records is conclusive of title cannot be supported. 3. 2. I take this opportunity of pointing out that the view entertained by the Collector that the decision of the Revenue Court on an application for correction of records is conclusive of title cannot be supported. 3. The costs of this appeal, which is decreed ex parte, will be the costs in the cause.