JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, J. - This is a decree- holder's appeal arising out of execution proceedings. A preliminary objection has been raised that no appeal lies. Before deciding this objection it is necessary to set out a few facts. 2. A suit for under-proprietary rent brought by the appellant in 1929 war. decreed ex parte. The suit was brought against the grandson of the original waqf of the property. No plea was raised that it was waqf property as the suit proceeded ex parte. In execution proceedings an objection was raised that the property was waqf property and was not liable to be sold. The Assistant Collector, first class, held that u/s 249 of the U. P. Tenancy Act the property was liable to be sold and rejected the objection. The District Judge differed from this view and held that the property was waqf property. The decree-holder has filed the present execution appeal u/s 269 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. This section lays down that an appeal shall lie to the High Court or the Chief Court...............from the appellate decree of a District Judge....................... 3. I am of opinion that the order of the District Judge is not appealable. There can be no doubt that a decree passed by an Assistant Collector of the first class in a suit for rent is appealable to the District Judge under the provisions of Section 265 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Any order passed by the Assistant Collector in the course of ' execution of such a decree is appealable under-sub-Section (2) of Section 271 to the District Judge in the same manner as the decree in the suit. Sub-Section (2) says: An appeal shall lie from an order mentioned in Section 47 or Section 104 or Section 144 or in Order XL1I1, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and made by an Assistant Collector of the first class or a Collector. Such appeal shall lie to the Court, if any, having jurisdiction u/s 265 of this Act to hear an appeal from the decree in the suit, or In the case of an application for execution, to the Court having jurisdiction to bear an appeal from the decree which is being executed. 4. Such appeal shall lie to the Court, if any, having jurisdiction u/s 265 of this Act to hear an appeal from the decree in the suit, or In the case of an application for execution, to the Court having jurisdiction to bear an appeal from the decree which is being executed. 4. It follows, therefore, that the appeal to the District Judge against the order of the Assistant Collector must be held to have been filed under sub-Section (2) of Section 271, and u/s 272 no appeal lies from any appellate order passed u/s 271. The present appeal is directed against "the appellate order of the District Judge. It is obvious, therefore, that no appeal is entertainable against the order. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellate order passed by the District Judge must be taken to be a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it was an order on the merits and involved the determination of the question u/s 47. Section 272 clearly forbids an appeal against any order passed in appeal u/s 271, while Section 269 permits an appeal against an appellate decree of the District judge. I am of opinion that the U. P. Tenancy Act is self-contained in the matter of appeals and draws a distinction between decrees and orders. It also appears to me that it was not the intention of the Legislature to provide a second appeal in execution proceedings u/s 47 taken in the Court of the Assistant Collector, first class (See Mathura Singh v. Ram Singh 1944 OA 130 : AWR (CC) 130 : O W N 189. I hold, therefore, that the preliminary objection is well-founded and must be allowed. 5. Accordingly I dismiss the appeal with costs as being not maintainable.