Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.
1. If I may say so with respect, there is much force in the view taken by the Full Bench in Maria Pillai v. Ramanathan Chettiar (1928) M.W.N. 557 that the only Court that can interfere with an order like the one we have before us in this case is the High Court in revision. But the Full Bench was prepared to hold in accordance with the procedure that had been followed in this Court for several years that an appeal from an order under Section 517 can be taken to the District Magistrate, which is described by the Code as the Court of Appeal. We are concerned only with an appeal against an order relating to the disposal of property and not an appeal from the main case itself, in which event the Court which hears the appeal can pass appropriate orders regarding the disposal.
2. The Additional District Magistrate's Court cannot be regarded as a Court of Appeal. He is not straightaway and by reason of his appointment as Additional District Magistrate vested with all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code, for Section 10(2) provides that the powers that he shall exercise shall be those powers that may be conferred upon him by the Provincial Government. Section 407(2) indicates his subordination to the District Magistrate whose Court is regarded as the Court of Appeal.
3. The order made by the Additional District Magistrate in this case was therefore without jurisdiction and is set aside; the result being that the order of the Sub-Magistrate will stand restored.