1. This is a reference made by the District Judge. A suit was brought by a tenant under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act for a declaration that be was an occupancy tenant. The Court of first instance decreed the claim. The tenant claims as the adopted son of a deceased tenant. At the hearing of the suit an objection was apparently raised that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of adoption and decide it. The Court framed an issue and decided that issue. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner who returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the District Judge under the provisions of Section 177, Clause (f) of the Tenancy Act. The District Judge is of opinion that really no question of jurisdiction properly arose in the matter at all, and it was a mistake of the Court to fix the issue mentioned above, and that the word “properly” should be read into S. 177, Cl. (f). In other words, that Cl. (f) should be read as follows: “A question of jurisdiction has been “properly” decided.” He is of opinion that the appeal does not lie to this Court but to the Court of the Commissioner. We find it impossible to agree with the learned District Judge. S. 177 is plain and unambiguous. It lays down distinctly that an appeal shall lie to the District Judge in all suits in which a question of jurisdiction “has been decided.” Whether the question has been decided properly or improperly is a totally different matter.
2. We cannot alter the law or read into the section words which the District Judge or ourselves think ought to have been there. In our opinion the question of jurisdiction having been raised and decided in the Court of the Assistant Collector, the appeal lies to the District Judge. Let the record be returned.
V.B/R.K
3. Record returned.