George Knox, J.
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted in the Court of an Assistant Collector. The suit as laid was for the ejectment of one Bhura. The Court of first instance passqd an order for ejectment. Bhura appealed from the decree to the Court of the District Judge of Saharanpur. The allegation of the plaintiff was to the effect that the defendant was in possession of the land in dispute without the consent of the plaintiff and without the payment of any ren4-, and the defendant on the other hand raised the plea that he was in proprietary and adverse possession of the land. This issue apparently was never tried. The District Judge held that the suit did not liaoinder the Tenancy Act, as the Revenue Courts had no power to eject a trespasser. The learned Judge admitted in his judgment that he was bound by a ruling of this Court in Balli v. Naubat Singh 16 Ind. Cas. 120 : 9 A.L.J. 771 but he has preferred to follow what he himself calls an obiter dictum in Nandan Singh v. Ganga Prashad 20 Ind. Cas. 892 : 35 A. 512 : 11 A.L.J. 786 together with Selected Decision No. 3 of 1910 of the Board of Revenue.
2. The learned Judge might with more propriety have saved himself all this extraordinary procedure on his part and confined himself to the law as laid down in Section 197 of the N.-W.P. Tenancy Act.
3. I set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and send the case back to that Court, with directions to re-admit the appeal on its file of pending appeals and dispose of it according to law. Costs will follow the event.