JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to recover arrears of rent from a sub-tenant holding from two occupancy tenants Saktu and Parana. The facts of the case may be briefly put as follows: In the year 1908, Saktu and Parana distrained upon the crops of Sukhdeo (defendant) for the rent of that year. Sukhdeo, sub-tenant, brought a suit in the revenue Court to contest the validity of the distraint, pleading that he had paid the rent. He produced a receipt purporting to bear the thumb-impression of Saktu. The revenue Court held that Parana and Saktu alone were not entitled to distrain for the rent as they had a third brother Madho who had not joined with them. It also went on to hold that the receipt was a good one. Madho having died, Parana and Saktu have now assigned to the present plaintiff-appellant Kanhai Ram their right to recover the rent of that year, and Kanhai Ram has brought the present suit. The defence was payment and production of the same receipt. The Assistant Collector in the first instance held that the receipt was not genuine and decreed the claim. On appeal to the District Judge, it was held that the receipt was genuine and payment was proved, and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff now comes to this Court in second appeal. The point now taken is that Saktu alone was not entitled to grant a valid receipt as he alone was not entitled to collect the rent, and as the plaintiff is the assignee of the rights of both Saktu and Paranar he is at least entitled to recover any sum which is due to Parana. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondent that no second appeal will lie. It is urged that Saktu and Parana having transferred their right to recover the rent due to Kanhai Ram, the latter could have brought his suit in the civil Court; and as the claim is for less than Rs. 500 the suit is one of a small, cause nature, and therefore no second appeal will lie. It is quite clear that the suit is one which could never have been brought in the civil Court at all. 500 the suit is one of a small, cause nature, and therefore no second appeal will lie. It is quite clear that the suit is one which could never have been brought in the civil Court at all. Section 167 of the Tenancy Act, most clearly lays down that no Court other than a revenue Court shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which any suit or application might be brought or made, that is to say, suits and applications of the nature specified in Sch. 4. Among them are suits for arrears of rent. The suit is purely and simply a suit to recover from the defendant a sum of money which is alleged to be due on, account of the rent of his holding, and it is a suit of the nature contemplated by this section. The old rulings quoted which are to be found in Autu Singh v. Ajudhia Sahu, [1887] 9 All. 249 : (1887) A.W.N. 27, and Tota Ram v. Har Kishan, [1885] 7 All. 224 : (1884) A.W.N. 347 have no force whatever in view of the clear and specific language of the present Act. 2. As to the point raised in the appeal itself, I may point out that this litigation has been going on since 1908. From the very beginning, Sukhdeo has been putting forward this receipt bearing the thumb-mark of Saktu. Never from that time up to the present moment has it over been alleged that Saktu alone was not entitled to recover the rent or to give a valid receipt for it on behalf of a family consisting of himself and his brothers. The receipt was put forward both in the original suit in which the distraint, was contested and again also in the present suit in the Court of first instance, and the fight has raged wholly and solely round the genuineness of the document and not on the question of Saktu's power to give a valid receipt. 3. The point, if it were inquired into now, would necessitate inquiries into certain questions of fact on which it would be necessary to take evidence. Among those questions is the question whether Saktu and Parana were joint or separate and whether Saktu was the managing member of the family or not. 3. The point, if it were inquired into now, would necessitate inquiries into certain questions of fact on which it would be necessary to take evidence. Among those questions is the question whether Saktu and Parana were joint or separate and whether Saktu was the managing member of the family or not. The appellant ought to have raised this point in the Courts below, and I cannot allow it to be raised now at this late stage of the case, there having been no issue and no evidence thereon. The lower Court having held the receipt to be valid and genuine, I am bound by the finding of fact. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.