JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent of a certain plot of land. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance but has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The first contention put forward on behalf of the plaintiff appellant is that the lower Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. u/s 177 of the Agra Tenancy Act an appeal lies to the District Judge in all suits in which a question of proprietary title has been in issue in the Court of first instance and is a matter in issue in the appeal. I have, therefore, to consider whether a question of proprietary title was raised and was in issue in the Court of first instance and was also in issue in the appeal. In his written statement the defendant distinctly said in paragraph 8 that "the land in dispute is not the zemindari property of the plaintiffs, nor was it ever in their possession as zemindars. They have no proprietary title thereto." In the 9th paragraph he said, "the defendant is in proprietary possession thereof." Again in paragraph 11 be said, "the land in dispute is a grove, and according to law, belongs to the defendant who has a proprietary right in it." It is cle