This second appeal by the plaintiff against the appellate decision of the learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 12.2.1960, arises form the following facts:— 2. The plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Assistant Collector. Jhunjhunu for the ejectment of the defendant respondent as trespassers as well as for damages amounting to Rs. 180/-. The averments made in the plaint were that the plaintiff was the adopted son of the deceased Jita Ram, who had adopted him sometime on Phagan Sudi Doj, Smt. 2002 and that ever since he had been living with him and after his death cam: in possession of the suit land as his heir. It was also stated that the respondents were the sisters son of the appellants deceased father is his adoptive and Dule Ram one of them used to assist the plaintiff appellants father in the management of the land in dispute. During the life time of the said Jita Ram the respondent had an evil eye on his land and other property, and had been trying to the plaintiffs deceased usurp and mis-appropriate the same by various dishonest means and with this object in view eventually succeeded in getting him murdered when the plaintiff was still a minor. The Respondent No. (1) also taking advantage of the minority of the plaintiff started cultivating the land in dispute himself without any authority. He was however subsequently arrested on a charge of murdering the adoptive father of the plaintiff, but in the meantime the other respondents in the like manner unlawfully took possession of the suit land. The plaintiff therefore prayed for their ejectment as trespassers and also for damages. In their written statement apart from other grounds on which the suit was resisted, one of the pleas taken was that the plaintiff was not the adopted son of the deceased Jita Ram nor did he inherit any property including this land as his adopted son and that therefore he could not bring this suit against the defendants. It was also stated that Dule Ram, Respondent No. (1) was adopted by the deceased and that he inherited his property including this land, was therefore, rightly in possession of it along with other respondents, who were his real brothers. The trial court framed several issues, out of which issue No. (3) and (5) with which we will be concerned in the present appeal. 3. The trial court framed several issues, out of which issue No. (3) and (5) with which we will be concerned in the present appeal. 3. Issue No. (3), whether Jitaram adopted Juglal plaintiff on Phagun Sudi Doj Smt.2002, and whether this adoption was valid. Issue No. (5). whether Dule Ram defendant was adopted by Jita Ram and was on this account lawfully in possession of the land as a khatedar khudkasth. As the trial court thought that a question of proprietary right was involved and also at the request of the respondents these two issues were referred to the civil court for a decision. The civil court sent a copy of its judgment in suit No. 205 of 1955, between these parties in which it had earlier decided whether the plaintiff or the defendant No. (1) was the adopted son of the deceased Jita Ram. Its finding was in favour of the plaintiff appellant and against defendant No. 1. Having obtained the aforesaid findings from the civil court the Assistant Collector examined the case on merits and in the result decreed the appellants suit for ejectment of the defendant as well as damages. Against this decree and judgment of the trial court dated 29.5.1959,an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner Jaipur. One of the grounds on which the appeal was contested was that the trial court was not justified in remitting the above two issues in the civil court as a question of proprietary right was not involved. Further even if it was so referred the correctness of the findings given by the civil Court could not be examined in appeal by the learned Additional Commissioner. These contentions found favour with the learned lower court. Accordingly he directed that the case be fixed for hearing on merits. 4. Being aggrieved from this order the plaintiff appellant has filed this appeal before us. We will first examine whether on the basis of the pleadings it can be said that a question of proprietary right in terms of Section 239 of the Rajasthan, Tenancy Act was or was not involved in this suit. The plaintiffs case was that he was adopted son of Jita Ram, whereas, the defendant asserted that he was the adopted son of the deceased, from whom both claimed succession to tenancy right. The plaintiffs case was that he was adopted son of Jita Ram, whereas, the defendant asserted that he was the adopted son of the deceased, from whom both claimed succession to tenancy right. A controversy of this type essentially raises a question of proprietary right in respect of the land forming the subject matter of the suit because in case it is found that the plaintiff was not the adopted son of the deceased he stands non-suited. Similarly, if the finding is against the defendant he along with others may have to be ejected as trespassers, who entered and took possession of the land without any lawful title. We, therefore, hold that the question of proprietary right in respect,of the land was definitely involved and the trial court was fully justified in referring the issues to a civil court of competent jurisdiction for a decision under Section 239(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 239(4) further Jays down that an appeal from a decree form the revenue court passed in a suit in which an issue involving a question of proprietary right has been decided by a civil court shall lie to the civil court which has jurisdiction to hear appeals form the court to which an issue of proprietary right had been referred. According to this provision of law if the respondent felt aggrieved from the findings of the civil court he should have preferred an appeal against the same to a civil court competent to hear an appeal against the decision of the court which decided it. A revenue court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against any "such findings. Even if it be conceded for a moment, a proposition to which we do not agree, that a question of proprietary right was not involved in the suit as contemplated in section 239 of Rajasthan Act, an appeal against the findings of the civil court would still be competent to a civil court; it could not lie to a revenue court. The rule of law is that if an issue was referred to the civil court, the appeal against the decree of a revenue court will also lie to a civil court whether or not the decision of that issue was necessary for the disposal of the suit. The rule of law is that if an issue was referred to the civil court, the appeal against the decree of a revenue court will also lie to a civil court whether or not the decision of that issue was necessary for the disposal of the suit. The fact that the revenue court had erred in sending the issue of proprietary right to a civil court or that the issue was unnecessary on the pleadings of the parties or the fact that the issue was wrongly decided by the civil court is immaterial. In a similar case A.I.R. 1949, Allahabad page 769, it was observed that all that is required by Section 286(4) U. P. Tenancy Act (which corresponds to Sec. 239(4) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act) to confer jurisdiction upon a civil court to hear an appeal is that an issue involving a question of proprietary right should have been decided by a civil court under sub-sec. 2 of Section 286 which is analogous to sub-sec. 2 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is not required that the decision of the issue should be necessary for the decision of the suit. Even if no question of proprietary right is involved and a revenue court has remitted the issue for a decision, by the civil court the appeal shall lie to a civil court competent to hear an appeal. The learned lower court was, therefore, no justified in holding that it was competent to hear an appeal against the decree of revenue court. Accordingly we allow this appeal set aside the order of the lower appellate court and direct that the appeal be returned to the respondents for filing it before a civil court competent to hear appeals form the court to which the issue of proprietary right had been referred according to the provision of section-239(4) of the Act.