( 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 u