JUDGMENT
Das, J.
1. The defendant, who is the appellant before us, was recorded as proprietor of a certain share in Mauzi Meral, Thereupon the respondent instituted a suit under the provision of Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act before a Revenue Officer for a decision of the dispute between them regarding the entry which the Revenue Officer had made in the record. The Revenue Officer dismissed the suit. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, The learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff’s suit. The defendant has now appealed to this Court from the decree passed by the Judicial Commissioner.
2. The first point taken on behalf of the respondent is that no appeal lies. The decisions of this Court on the point raised by Mr. Asghar are conflicting. But there is a judgment of two Judges of this Court in favour of the view which has been advanced before us by Mr. Asghar, whereas there is a decision of a single Judge in favour of the view maintained by Mr. Ramlal Dutt. The decision which is relied upon by Mr. Asghar is Jagdeshar Dayal Singh v. Bhagdi Mahton 58 Ind. Cas. 434 : 5 P.L.J. 697 : (1920) Pat 302 : 1 P.L.T.705 and the decision relied upon by Mr. Ramlal Dutt is Lal Man Naik v. Kanhyaa Lall Pandey 40 Ind. Cas. 891. There is a decision of the Calcutta High Court in favour of the view which has been advanced before us by Mr. Asghar. That decision is in Raghubir Sahi v. Protab Uday Nath Sahi Deo 13 Ind. Cas. 193 : 16 C.W.N. 294 : 39 C. 241, 15 C.L.J. 145.
3. In my opinion the decision in Jagdeshar Dayal Singh v. Bhagdi Mahton 58 Ind. Cas. 434 : 5 P.L.J. 697 : (1920) Pat 302 : 1 P.L.T.705 is correct. The point is this, Section 224, sub Section (2), gives a right of appeal to this Court first from any appellate decree passed by the Judicial Commissioner under Chapter XVI, and secondly from any order passed by him on appeal under Section 215, Sub-section (3). There is, therefore, a right of appeal to this Court if the decision of the Judicial Commissioner is a decision under Chapter XVI, or is an order passed by him on appeal under Section 215, Sub-section (3). Mr. Dutt does not contend that the order passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner is an order passed by him on appeal under Section 215, Sub-section (3). But he strenuously contends that the decree passed by the Judicial Commissioner is a decree under Chapter XVI and, therefore, appealable under Clause (2) of Section 224.
4. His argument is this, He says that an appeal from an order passed under Section 87 lies in the prescribed manner and to the prescribed officer. The Local Government under the provisions of Section 264, Clause (8), has framed rules prescribing the manner in which and the officer to whom appeals lie from decisions passed under Section 87. Those rules are to be found at page 110 of Mr. Reid’s book on the Chota Nagpur Tenanay Act. They are as follows:
(1) Appeals from decisions of Revenue Officers under Section 87(1) shall lie to the Judicial Commissioner.
(2) Every such appeal must be presented within thirty days from the date on which the decision appealed against was signed and delivered.
(3) The provisions of Sections 220 to 223 shall, as far as they are applicable, apply to such appeals.
5. Mr. Dutt’s contention based on the Notification passed by the Lieutenant-Governor on the 24th May 1909 is this: He says that the appeal lies to the Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi and the procedure laid down in Sections 220 to 223 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act applies to appeals which must be taken to the Judicial Commissioner. Under Section 223 the Judicial Commissioner has to give judgment in the manner provided in Section 170 for giving judgment in original suits, Therefore, Mr. Ramlal Dutt says, the order of the Judicial Commissioner in an appeal from an order under Section 87 is an order under Section 222, and as Section 223 is to he found in Chapter XVI of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 224, Sub-section (2). In my opinion the argument does not deserve any success. It is quite true that by virtue of the Notification passed by the Lieutenant-Governor the Judicial Commissioner is competent to deal with an appeal from an order passed under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, but he does not exercise that jurisdiction under Chapter XVI but under a special jurisdiction which has been conferred on him by the Lieutenant Governor by the Notification of the 24th May 1909: in other words, Chapter XVI does not by its own force apply to the decision of the Judicial Commissioner. Accordingly that decision cannot be a decision under Section 223. In my opinion, therefore, an appeal does not lie to this Court under Section 224, Sub-section (2), of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.
6. Next it was contended by Mr. Ramlal Dutt that there is a right of appeal to this Court under the Civil Procedure Code. In my opinion this argument again is unsound, A decision under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is not a decree; it is a decision, and there is no appeal to the High Court under the Civil Procedure Code from a decision. The point was discussed in the Calcutta High Court in the case of Raghubir Sahi v. Protab Udoy Nath Sahi Deo 13 Ind. Cas. 193 : 16 C.W.N. 294 : 39 C. 241, 15 C.L.J. 145. I agree with the decision of Stephen, J., in that case, and in accordance therewith and with the decision of this Court in the case of Jagdeshar Dayal Singh v. Bhagdi Mahton 58 Ind. Cas. 434 : 5 P.L.J. 697 : (1920) Pat 302 : 1 P.L.T.705 must dismiss this appeal with costs.
7. There is a revision petition against the order of the Judicial Commissioner. In my opinion there is no error of jurisdiction at all, It was argued by Mr. Ramlal Dutt that the learned Commissioner had no business to decide a question of title. But I do not think that he has in fast decided any question of title. No doubt in deciding whether the entry in the Record of Rights is correct or incorrect he had incidentally to discuss the question of title, but his decision on the question of title is only incidental; it is nothing more than that. His decision really is a decision on the question of possession. I must refuse the revision petition but without costs.
Ross, J.
8. I agree.