JUDGMENT George Knox, J.
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Musammat Ajnasi Kuar and another against Payag Singh. In the plaint which Musammat Ajnasi Kuar filed in the Revenue Court she described her suit as a suit for assessment of rent under Section 150/156 of Act No. II of 1901, or assessment of revenue under Section 150/158 of Act No. II of 1801. She goes on to say that until the last Settlement the defendant was in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant by paying rent to the plaintiffs' ancestor and to the plaintiffs. He was in possession as an occupancy tenant. At the last Settlement the name of the defendant was, by mistake, entered as the purchaser of shanltalp property. Since that date or thereabout the defendant on the strength of the wrong entry has denied responsibility, for paying rent and (he plaintiffs pray that, a rent of Rs. 26-2-0 a year or as, much as the Court may deem proper be assessed on the land in dispute under Section 150/156. She also prayed for an alternative relief, she asked that revenue might be assessed on the plots of land in dispute under Section 150/156 of Act No. II of 1901. There can be no doubt that, what the plaintiff intended and aimed at was relief to be granted her under Section 156 or Section 158 of Act No. II of 1901. In the written statement the defendant, as his written statement shows, fully realized this and contended that he suit under Section 150/156 was not cognizable by, the Revenue Court. He set up other allegations, such as that he was Zamindar in proprietary possession of the property in dispute; that the plaintiff had admitted the defendant was in possession free from payment of rent, etc. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the defendant was an occupancy tenant and, fixed Rs. 20 per year as the rent of the holding in suit.
2. The matter went in appeal to the District Judge of Benares and before that Court several pleas were taken. Among them was a plea to the effect that Chapter X of the Rent Act was not applicable. The lower Appellate Court took up this plea and held that the plaintiff was cot entitled to any remedy under Chapter X of the Tenancy Act and refused to decide any issue arising between the parties. Its main reason for arriving at this conclusion is that Section 156 of Act No. II of 1901 comes within a chapter which is headed Resumption of rent-frbe grants". This Court has elsewhere pointed out that reliance cannot be placed upon the "headings" of chapters or descriptions given of sections in the margin of the same. I think this applies with peculiar force to such headings, etc., in an Act such as Local Act No. II of 1901, which cannot be held to be a model of good drafting. The matter in dispute had been clearly put and clearly met and does not seem to be beyond the provisions of Section 156 as they stand in the Act. The subject-matter of the suit was land not liable to resumption under Section 154 or land to which the provisions of Section 158 applied. The issue was, whether it was liable to assessment of rent or not? I set aside (he finding of the lower Appellate Court on the preliminary point and return the case to the lower Appellate Court with directions to re-admit the appeal upon the list of pending appeals and dispose of it according to law. Costs will follow the event.