JUDGMENT

Subbarao J.- l. The appellant, Mohd. Murtiza Khan, is the son of Mohd. Ahmad Khan. In respect of 108.51 acres of lands situate in village Chandpur Tahsil Gairatganj, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. pattas were issued in favour of the appellant in 1944 and 1947. In September 1951 pursuant to a settlement alleged to have been entered into between the appellant's father. Mohd. Ahmad Khan, and respondent 2 to 8, the Collector of Raisen cancelled the Pattas of the appellant and the said lands were put in the possession of respondents 2 to 8. The appeal filed by the appellant to the Revenue Commissioner was dismissed on March 28, 1952. The appellant became major on March 15, 1953. On April 22, 1954, he filed Suit No. 21 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Begamganj, for a declaration of title in his favour in respect of the said property, for cancellation of the Pattas issued by the Collector on October 22, 1951, in favour of the respondents and for possession thereof. It was alleged in the plaint, inter alia, that the alleged compromise between the appellant's father and the respondents was brought about by coercion and that the order cancelling the Pattas was illegal. The contesting respondents alleged that they were the tenants of the said lands before the alleged Pattas were issued in favour of the appellant by a fraud practised by his father, that the subsequent settlement between appellant's father and the respondents was bona fide one and that the order of the Collector setting aside the previous order issuing Pattas in favour of the appellant was valid.

2. On the said pleadings as many as 12 issues were framed. The first seven issues related to limitation. Court fee and other technical grounds Issues 8 to 12 related to merits.

3. The trial Court by its judgment dated April 12, 1958 answered issues 1 to 7 in favour of the appellant, but answered the remaining issue against him. In the result it dismissed the appellant's suit.

4. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Bhopal, held that the appellant's father was not guilty of fraud in obtaining the Pattas in the name of the appellant, and that the order of the Collector cancelling the previous Pattas was illegal. On the said view, he decreed the suit in favour of the appellant. It does not appear from the judgment of the District Judge that any argument was made by the respondents before him on the question of limitation.

5. On a further appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, set aside the decree of the District Judge on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Art.14 of the Limitation Act. Hence the appeal learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Articles of the limitation Act appropriate to the suit is Art.142 and not Art.14 thereof. Elaborating this contention it is argued that the Collector had no jurisdiction to review the order issuing Pattas in favour of the appellant and that, therefore, the said order could be ignored, with the result that the plaintiff appellant, on the basis of his title, would be entitled to a decree for possession, as the suit was filed within three years from the date he attained n1ajority.

6. Art. 142 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of limitation of 12 years for a suit for possession of immovable property when the plaintiff has been disposed from the date of dispossession. The appellant filed the suit on the basis of his title for possession alleging that he was dispossessed. To such a suit Art. 142 of the Limitation Act applies.

7. But it is said that in view of the order of the Collector setting aside the previous order issuing Pattas in favour of the appellant, Art.14 of the Limitation Act is attracted. Article 14 of the said Act reads:

Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run

To set aside any act or One year The date of the act or order

order of an officer of

Government in his

official capacity, not

herein otherwise expressly

provided fo