( 1 ) IN this Second Appeal the following three questions have been framed as substantial questions of law:1. Whether the lower appellate court erred in holding that the plaintiff in the suit challenges the order of the Mamlatdar dated 23/03/1964 though there is neither such prayer in the plaint nor any issue regarding the legality or validity of the said order?2. Whether the lower appellate court erred in upholding the judgment and decree of the trial court which dismissed the plaintiffs suit as barred by law of limitation?3. Whether the plaintiff who is having a valid title and who is in possession need challenge an illegal ultra vires and void order from its inception of he can defend his title and possession when physically obstructed by filing a suit for injunction ignoring such illegal ultra vires and void order The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lower courts have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation and all these questions have bearing on the question of limitation.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are: the appellant-plaintiff is the son of ex-jagirdar of Sarvana. That jagir has been abolished with effect from 1/08/1954 under the Jagir Abolition Act. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Mamlatdar as a delegate of the Collector had held an inquiry under sec. 37 (2) of the Bombay Lan Revenue Code in respect of the land of 5. No. 210 of village Sarvana (276 Acres and 16 Gunthas ). By an order dt. 13/11/1962 the Mamlatdar had passed an order holding the father of the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit land and to enter his name in the record of rights. In appeal the Collector by his order dt. 23/12/1963 remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for a fresh decision on merits according to law after taking into consideration various documentary evidence. On remand the Mamlatdar by his order dt. 23/02/1964 held that the suit land belonged to the State and that the possession of the father of the plaintiff was unauthorised. The plaintiff s father filed Regular Civil Suit 57/54 challenging the decision of the Mamlatdar but said suit was later on withdrawn on 4-11-1965 with a permission to file a father suit on the same cause of action. The fresh suit was filed after about 5 years and was registered as Civil Suit No. 7/69 and that was also withdrawn on 10/12/1969 with a permission to file fresh suit. However no fresh suit was filed by the father of the plaintiff and the present Regular Civil Suit No. 76/73 has been filed by the present plaintiff the son of the original ex-jagirdar.

( 3 ) THE first order dated 13-11-62 is at ex. 95. The order of the Collector dt. 23-12-63 is at ex. 96. hat order was passed after hearing the ex-jagirdar Shri Bhupatsinh Thakore through his learned advocate Shri C. N. Shah. The Collector found that the Mamlatdar had submitted the inquiry papers to the P. O. and on security of the papers the Collector found that the claimant Jagirdar had not proved by any documentary evidence that the area under 5. no. 210 was a forest land and the Jagirdar had given a contract for cutting or realised any income as forest produce therefrom. The Collector referred to the evidence led by the Jagirdar and held that there was only oral evidence and as against that there was evidence of the Range forest officer who was conversant with the forest matters and according to him it was mainly a hilly track area and not forest area. It was also that question of sharing the income from the land with the ex-Idar State and there was evidence in that behalf and thereafterfore the Collector remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for deciding the case after going thorough all the past records and document for the purpose of deciding the question of ownership over the forest land The Mamlatdar recorded The evidence of the claimant Jagirdar on 15/03/1964 and thereinafter decided the matter against the criminal Jagirdar. Against the order of the Mamlatdar under sec. 37 (2) of the Bomb