1. An unclassed suit of value not exceeding Rs. 100 for redemption of a house from mortgage was instituted in the Court of a Munsif and a decree for redemption on payment of Rs. 110 was passed.
2. An appeal was instituted in the Court of the Divisional Judge who, following Muhammad Khan. v. Ashak Muhammad Khan 106 P.R. 1895 returned it for presentation to the District Judge. The District Judge has disagreed with the Divisional Judge, and, citing Kishan Chnnd v. Taj-ud-Din 23 P.R. 1909 : 197 P.L.R. 1908 : 37 P.W.R. 1909 : 1 Ind. Cas. 870 has referred the question of jurisdiction to this Court for decision.
2. Kishan Chand v. Taj-ud-Din 23 P.R. 1909 : 197 P.L.R. 1908 : 37 P.W.R. 1909 : 1 Ind. Cas. 870 has reference to the valuation for purposes of farther appeal under Section 40, Punjab Courts Act. This section differs materially in its language from Section 39 of the same Act, and in Kishan Chand v. Taj-ud-Din 23 P.R. 1909 : 197 P.L.R. 1908 : 37 P.W.R. 1909 : 1 Ind. Cas. 870 a clear distinction was made between first appeals under Section 69, to which Muhammad Khan v. Ashah Muhammad Khan 106 P.R. 1895 applies and further appeals under Section 40.
3. The District Judge has failed to notice this distinction, and we think that it was quite unnecessary for him to question a decision by a superior Court on the point of jurisdiction.
4. The appeal now in question is a first appeal under Section 39, Punjab Courts Act, and the learned Divisional Judge rightly held, on the authority of Muhammad Khan v. Ashak Muhammad Khan 106 P.R. 1895 that the question of jurisdiction must be determined with reference to the claim made, and not with reference to the decision upon the claim.
5. Our decision on the reference is that the appeal lies to the Court of the District Judge under Section 39(a), Punjab Courts Act and we direct that it be returned to the District Judge for disposal.
6. No costs have been incurred in this Court and no order in respect of costs is necessary.