( 1 ) [his Lordship after narrating the facts proceeded. ] Mr. Shah who appears for the plaintiff has challenged the order of dismissal of the plaintiffs suit by the Trial Court and the learned Assistant Judge. His first contention was that the finding by the courts below that the suit was barred both under section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act and under section 37 (3) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was erroneous and was not justified in law. He submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was in fact in time as it was filed on the 22nd of June 1953 i. e. within one year from the 28/04/1952 that being the date of the order of dismissal of the plaintiffs appeal by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal which is the final appellate authority That contention in my view cannot be sustained.

( 2 ) THE suit in substance was to set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and subsequently confirmed by the superior revenue authorities. Though in the plaint it was said that the suit was for a declaration that the land in question was of the plaintiffs ownership and there was a prayer for a perpetual injunction restraining the State of Bombay from interfering was his posse