JUDGMENT

Mookerjee, J. - The subject-matter of this litigation is a tract of alluvial land which has been assessed by the revenue authorities under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act, 1847. The order of the Board of Revenue u/s 6 of Act IX of 1847 is embodied in a letter dated the 28th November, 1912 and a petition by the plaintiff to review the decision was rejected on the 29bh June, 1914. The present suit was thereupon instituted on the 29th June, 1915, for declaration that the disputed tract was not 'added' land within the meaning of Section 6 of Act IX of 1847 and that the assessment was consequently without jurisdiction. The plaintiffs further prayed for consequential relief by way of refund of the sums paid by them, as revenue under protest. The suit was defended by the Secretary of State for India in Council on the merits as also on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no cause of action and no right of suit, and, further, that the suit was barred by limitation. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action?

2. Have the plaintiffs any right of suit in the present form?

3. Has the plaint been properly stamped?

4. Is the suit barred fey limitation?

5. Are the plaintiffs estopped by their own conduct from questioning the settlement?

6. Were the lands in suit permanently settled with the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest?

7. Are the lands liable to assessment? If so, what should be the proper revenue for the lands, and at what rate, should land be assessed?

8. Whether the proceedings under Act IX of 1847 are legal and valid?

2. The Subordinate Judge first took up for disposal the first, second and fourth issues. Upon the first and second issues, he held that the plaintiffs had a right to sue. Upon the fourth issue, he held that the suit was barred under Article 14 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. The result was that on the 12th December, 1918, the suit was dismissed without enquiry into the merits. On appeal to this court, Woodroffe and Walmsley, JJ., on the 7th February, 1921, set aside the decision of the Subordinate Judge. It appears to have been urged, on the One hand, that the facts found by the Subordinate Judge were not sufficient to show that article 14 governed the case; it was argued, on the other hand, that the suit might be barred under the one-year rule enunciated in Section 24 of Reg. II of 1819. The case was accordingly remanded for reconsideration of the question of limitation, and, should the point be decided in favour of the plaintiffs, for investigation on the merits. After remand, the Subordinate Judge has again dismissed the suit on the 30th September, 1921, without enquiry into the merits. He has held that Article 14 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act is not appropriate, but that the suit is barred u/s 24 of Reg. II of 1819, on the authority of the decision Prafulla v. Secretary of State (1920) 24 C.W.N. 813 On the present appeal, the plaintiffs have urged that Section 24 of Reg. II of 1819 has no application and does not bar the suit which should be investigated on the merits.

3. Before we deal with the question in controversy, we shall briefly state the history of the disputed property as narrated in the papers placed before us. On the 2nd September, 1828, the lands of what now constitutes estate No. 4537 of the Collectorate of Backergunj were resumed under Reg. II of 1819 and Reg. III of 1828; but the possession of the howladars, who had taken settlement in 1793 from the proprietors, was not disturbed. The proprietors declined to accept resettlement, with the result that on the 2nd January, 1835, a settlement of the resumed lands was made with the howladars. This was followed by a permanent settlement with the howladars on the 24th June, 1842. The case for the plaintiffs is that the lands now in suit were treated as included in their permaently-settled estate, at the time of the Thak Survey in 1859-60, the Revenue Survey in 1