Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit for refund of collection charges deducted by the State from the income of the plaintiff's Jagir, as the State was a de facto agent of the plaintiff.

MODI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two civil appeals arise out of a single judgment and decree of the Civil judge, Bundi, dated 14th October. 1958, in a suit for refund of money and we propose to dispose of them together by present judgment.

( 2 ) THE material facts may shortly be stated as follows :--

( 3 ) THE plaintiff was the ex-Jagirdar of Thikana Koila in the former State of Kola It is admitted that his jagir was resumed by the State on the 1st August, 1954. under the Rajas-than Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The State of Kota. as it then was, was merged in what may conveniently be called the first united State of Rajasthan in April, 1948, and became part of the second United state of Rajasthan which was formed in the middle of 1949 The last mentioned state was then formed into the Part B State of Rajasthan with the coming into force of the Constitution on 26th January. 1950. and is now represented by the present State of Rajasthan as it was constituted under the States Reorganisation act. 1956 (Act No XXXI of 1956 ). It is further common ground between the parties that the first United State of Raias-than issued Ordinances No 27 of 1948 and Nos. 10 and 15 of 1949, by which the manage ment of all jagirs existing in that State inclu-ding the jagir of the present appellant was taken over by the then State by virtue of the provisions of those Ordinances. The position, therefore was that when the second United State of Rajasthan was formed in May, 1949. these Ordinances were in force in a part of the State and the jagirs in that area were managed by the State, while similar jagirs in other States continued to be managed by the Jagirdars themselves. It was in these circumstances that Rao Mano-har Singh filed a writ application in this Court being d. B. Civil Miscellaneous (Writ) Case No. 1 of 1951, in which the constitutional validity of the aforesaid Ordinances was impugned. By the judgment dated 11th december, 1951, it was held by a Bench of this Court that Section 8-A which was introduced in Ordinance No. 27 of 1948 by Section 4 of Ordinance No 10 of 1949 and the amendment to Section 8a. by Section 3 of Ordinance No. 15 of 1949 were unconstitutional and void under Article 13 (1) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof in the result the State was prohibited from collecting rents from the tenants of land comprising the Jagir of Bedla. It may also be pointed out here that the Slate went up in appeal from that judgment to the Supreme Court where also ihe decision of Ihis Court was upheld (see State of Rajasthan v. Mano-har Singhji. AIR 1954 SC 297) Even so it is admitted between the parties that the defendant Stale continued to relain the manage-ment of the plaintiffs jagir right from 1st April, 1951 upto 1st Augusl, 1954 Out of the income which the State thus realised from the plaintiffs jagir. according to the plaintiff, it retained certain sums by way of collection charges namely. Rs 10,361/4/ for the vear 1951 52. another sum of Rs 10. 995/13/6 for the year 1952-53. and furthe, sum of Rs. 27,487/6/6 for the year 1953-54. out of the total income of the jagir in respect of the land rent for the aforementioned years upto 1st Augusl. 1954. at the rale of 35 per cent of the entire income of the jagir. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant State also made like deductions with respect to the forest income of his jagir being a sum of Rs 1, 073/6/3 for the year 1951-52. Rs. 121/11/6 for Ihe vear 1952-53 and Rs 451/11/, for the vear 1953-54 upto 1st August. 1954 The plaintiffs case thus was that Ihe defendant had wrongfully retained a sum of Rs 50. 491/4/9 by way of collection charges from ihe income of his jagir It is alleged lhat the plaintiff asked for the refund of this amount from the defendant many a times, but without any purpose and, therefore, after giving the statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil procedure he brought this suit out of which the present appeals arise In this