Dalal, J.:— The District Judge has wrongly refused jurisdiction. His attention does not appear to have been drawn to the provisions of section 248(3) of the Agra Tenancy Act. What happened in the present case was this. A suit for recovery of arrears of rent was dismissed by an Assistant Collector of the second class on the ground that the plaintiffs had no, rights in the sir land. This was the contention raised both by the tenants and by the other defendants who were zamindars. Clearly a question of proprietary title was raised. The plaintiffs went in appeal to the Collector, and he held that the plaintiffs and the zamindar-defendants were jointly proprietors of the sir land and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to sue for recovery of rent. The suit was, therefore, remanded under order XLI, rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. This was an order, and an appeal has been provided from an order of the Collector under section 248(3) of the Agra Tenancy Act. The provisions of that section run as follows: “An appeal shall lie from the following orders of an Assistant Collector of the first class or of a Collector, namely, orders mentioned in sections 47 and 104 and in order XLIII, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” Under order XLIII, rule 1(u), an appeal shall lie from an order under rule 23 of order XLI, remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate court. The question, therefore, to be decided is whether in a case like the present an appeal would lie from the decree of the Collector to the District Judge. Such an appeal would lie from the appellate decree of a Collector in the present case under section 243 of the Tenancy Act, because a proprietary right has been in issue between the parties in the first appellate court and is certain to be in issue in the appeal. The learned Judge's reference to section 249 of the Act arises out of a misapprehension. He has omitted to notice that this section comes under the heading “Appeals from orders”. Possibly the language of section 249 is not happy. But this section should be read in reference to the heading above section 247. An appeal is prohibited from an order passed in appeal from another order and not from an order passed in appeal from a decree. The District Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. His decree dated the 23rd of April, 1929, is set aside and he is directed to hear the appeal according to law. Costs here and heretofore shall abide the result.