JUDGMENT Yorke and Ghulam Hasan JJ. 1. This is a reference made by the learned Munsif of Partabgarh u/s 151 of the CPC in a suit pending before him. 2. The suit was for possession of some tenancy plots and for damages by the plaintiff on the ground that he was the statutory tenant of the plots in suit and had been dispossessed by the defendants. The plaintiff and the first two defendants are brothers while defendant No. 3 is the plaintiff's nephew. The Defence was that the tenancy rights belonged to the joint family of the parties and that the defendants came into possession of the plots upon a partition among the family members. The learned Munsif framed the following issue- Whether tenancy in suit was the joint family property of the parties? If so, has there been partition of the tenancy and have allotments been made as alleged? 3. The learned Munsif referred the aforesaid issue to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Partabgarh, for decision u/s 288 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, (Act No. XVII of 1939). The Sub-Divisional Officer decided the first part of the issue as in the affirmative but gave no decision on the second part of the issue as in his opinion he had no jurisdiction to decide that point. He returned the case to the learned Munsif after recording the finding stated above. The learned Munsif was of opinion that he had his doubts whether he had any jurisdiction to decide the latter part of the issue which the Sub-Divisional Officer had declined to decide. Accordingly he formulated the following point for decision by this Court: Is this Court or the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Partabgarh competent to decide the latter part of the above issue? 4. The learned Munsif felt that Section 289 of the U.P. Tenancy Act did not authorize him to make a reference to this Court and referred the matter u/s 151 of the CPC as according to him there was no bar to such reference by any statute. 5. We are of opinion that the reference is incompetent. 6. There is no doubt that u/s 289 of U.P. Tenancy Act, Civil or a Revenue Court may submit the record to the High Court or the Chief Court as the case may be only when it is in doubt whether it is competent to entertain any suit, application or appeal. We are of opinion that the reference is incompetent. 6. There is no doubt that u/s 289 of U.P. Tenancy Act, Civil or a Revenue Court may submit the record to the High Court or the Chief Court as the case may be only when it is in doubt whether it is competent to entertain any suit, application or appeal. It cannot be seriously contended that the learned Munsif felt any doubts about his competency to entertain the suit that was filed before him. In these circumstances it is quite clear that no reference could be made under the provisions of Section 289 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. We are further of opinion that a reference is not permissible even under the provisions of. Section 113 read with Order 46, Rule 1 of the CPC which clearly lays down that- Where, before or on the hearing of a suit or an appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal, or where, in the execution of any such decree, any question of law or usage having the force of law arises, on which the Court trying the suit or appeal, or executing the decree entertains reasonable doubt, the Court may, either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained, and refer such statement with its own opinion on the point for the decision of the High Court. 7. The suit pending' before the learned Munsif is one which is subject to an appeal not only to the lower appellate Court but also to a second appeal to this Court if the conditions of Section 100 of the CPC are satisfied. In these circumstances the learned Munsif has chosen to resort to the provisions of Section 151 of the CPC and has referred the case to this Court with a view to obtaining its opinion on the point referred to it. We are satisfied that the learned Munsif had no power to make any reference under the provisions of Section 151 of the CPC and consequently we are unable to entertain this reference. We are satisfied that the learned Munsif had no power to make any reference under the provisions of Section 151 of the CPC and consequently we are unable to entertain this reference. As we have already stated the matter could be thrashed out not only in the trial Court but also in appeal and we see no reason why the trial Court should be relieved of the necessity of deciding the question arising before it, however difficulty might appear to be. 8. Holding that this reference is not entertainable we return the papers to the lower Court with a direction that the lower Court should proceed to decide the matter according to law. We may however point out that the learned Munsif would be well advised in deciding the matter himself as expeditiously as possible unless he should find it absolutely necessary to refer it back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Partabgarh. 9. Let the reference be returned, to the lower Court.