JUDGMENT

Richardson, J. - These two appeals arise out of proceedings taken by the Revenue Authorities under Act IX of 1847 for the assessment to revenue of lands which, at the time of the Thak and Revenue surveys, of 1859 and 1860, formed portion of the beds of certain rivers.

2. By decisions, dated the 14th November 1914, the 2nd January 1915, and the 11th March 1915, the Board of Revenue found that the lands were liable to assessment under the Act and disallowed the objections of the proprietors. The proprietors, who are the executors of the estate of the late Babu Kally Kishen Tagore, then brought two suits to contest these decisions, Suit No. 537 of 1915 and Snit No. 195 of 1916. Both suits were dismiss-by the Subordinate Judge and the proprietors have appealed to this Court. Appeal No. 143 relates to Suit No. 195 and Appeal No. 144 to Suit No. 537. In both appeals the Secretary of State is the respondent and it will be convenient to deal with them by one and the same judgment.

3. The lands have been assessed to revenue on the footing that they are accretions by fluvial action to villages included within estates belonging to the appellants which were permanently settled in 1793. The villages concerned are:

1. Syed Jafar | abutting on the River2. Arazbegee  | Arazbegee.3. Aoliapur   |4. Kalaiya abutting on the River Kilaiya5. Ghar Bukhainagar |Abutting on the                    | River Bukhai-6. Char Khanan      | nagar.

4. As regards the accretions to villages 1, 2 and 3 in the list, the first plea taken on the Secretary of State's behalf was that the appellant's suit No. 537 of 1915, so far as it related to these accretions, was barred by limitation u/s 24 of Regulation II of 1819. Aoliapur is not expressly mentioned in the copy of the Board's decision of 14th November 1914, which has been printed, but both in the Court below and before us that decision was treated as covering all the accreted lands abutting on the River Arazbegee (see also the plaint in suit No. 537).

5. Section 24 of Regulation II lays down that "persons whose lands may be assessed...shall...be entitled to sue any time within one year from the date of their being informed of the Board's decision; but after the above period shall have elapsed the decision of the Board shall be final and conclusive."

6. A proviso is added, but it is not suggested, that the present case comes within it.

7. The decision of the 14th November 1914 was communicated to the appellants on the 6th December 1914. Suit No. 537 was instituted more than a year after on the 13th December 1915. If, therefore, the section applies, the Subordinate Judge is right in upholding the plea of limitation in regard to the accretions to these three villages. Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act of 1908 has no application to a period of limitation provided by a special or local law Kalimuddin Mollah v. Sahibuddin Mollah 54 Ind. Cas. 705 : 47 C. 300 : 30 C.L.J. 456 : 24 C.W.N. 4.

8. The question arises whether the rules contained in Section 10 of Regulation III of 1828 and Section 24 of Regulation II of 1819 govern a suit to contest an order of the Board of Revenue u/s 6 of Act IX of 1847 confirming an assessment under the Act and to obtain incidental relief such as recovery of possession of lands of which possession has been taken u/s 10 of the 1828 Regulation. The question was touched upon but not decided in R.A. No. 302 of 1918 (decided on the 12th April 1920). See Ante, p. 896--Ed.

9. The effect of Act IX of 1847 on the Regulations was considered by a Full Bench of this Court and then by the Privy Council in Fahamidannissa Begum v. Secretary of State 14 C. 67 (F.B.) : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 46, on appeal to Privy Council 17 I.A. 40 : 17 C. 590 699 : 5 S. P.C.J. 391 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 933 (P.C.). The discussion turned on the true meaning of Sections 1 and 6 of Act IX, particularly the concluding words of Section 6 which enact that the orders of the Board of Revenue shall be "final". It is only necessary to pr