Shah, J.

1. It is true that an inference as to permanent tenancy is a mixed question of law and fact and could foe raised in second appeal. But the facts found from which the inference in favour of a party claiming to be a permanent tenant is sought to be raised must be regarded as binding in second appeal, though the question as to what inference should be raised from those facts must be regarded as a question of law. In the present case on the facts found it is impossible to raise a presumption under Section 83 of the Land Revenue Code in favour of defendants 1 and 2. Admittedly there is no Miras Patra in favour of defendants 1 and 2, and the question that defendants 1 and 2 were mirasdars was not argued before the learned appellate Judge. Even though the question as to the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain and decide a suit relating to tenancy and protected tenancy was not argued in the lower appellate Court, Mr. Shukhtankar on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 has contended before me that once defendants 1 and 2 raised a contention that they were tenants and not liable to be evicted, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit. The learned trial Judge held