A suit for declaration of share in an agricultural land is not maintainable in a Civil Court but should be filed in the Revenue Court.

JUDGMENT :- This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for cancellation of a document dated 1-6-1958 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant Ratna.

2. The plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint is that the land in question which is a piece of agricultural land situated in village Khamnor, District Udaipur was originally owned and possessed by one Damodar and the plaintiff and the defendant are the sole survivors of Damodar and consequently each of them is entitled to one-half share in the land in question. It is alleged by the plaintiff that by practising fraud on him the defendant managed to get the document in question executed by the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff was made to acknowledge that he had only one-third share in this land.

The plaintiff goes on to state that he discovered this fraud when he had a talk with some relations and friends of his on 20-6-1961 at the fair of Partap Jayanti in Khamnor. Having discovered this fraud he filed the present suit in the Court of Munsiff Nathdwara on 3-7-1961 praying that the document dated 1-6-1958 wherein the plaintiff had acknowledged that he had only one-third share in the land in dispute and that two-thirds belonged to the defendant, be cancelled.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant, who pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff had only one-third share in the land in dispute and that he had not practised any fraud on the plaintiff for getting the document dated 1-6-1958 executed by him. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by time. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence produced by the parties decreed the plaintiff's suit.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the defendant filed appeal which was allowed by the Additional Civil Judge. Udaipur by his judgment dated 19-11-63 and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Learned Civil Judge held that the version of the plaintiff that he happened to discover the fraud on 20-6-1961 is incorrect, and that the limitation for the suit commenced from the date of the execution of the document, that is 1st June, 1958. He also held that the suit was governed by Article 91 of the Limitation Act (1908). which was then in force and since the suit has been filed on 4-7-1961, a day after the expiry of the period of three years from the date of the execution of the document., the suit was barred by limitation. He further held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that any fraud was practised upon him for getting the suit document executed by him. In this view of the matter, he set aside the judgment and decree by the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

5. On the question of limitation I must say that the learned first appellate court did not care to look at the plaint at all. It has observed that the plaint was submitted on 4-7-1961, and counting the period of limitation on that basis it held the suit out of limitation as the last date for presentation of the plaint was 3-7-1961 on which the Civil Courts reopened after summer vacation. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the plaint was filed on 3-7-61 it was clearly within limitation. It is indeed sad to observe that the learned first appellate court held the suit to be time-barred on account of its wrong assumption that the suit was filed on 4-7-1961. which was the date of report submitted by the Stamp Reporter.

It is conceded on behalf of the respondent that in this view of the matter, the finding of the learned Civil Judge that the suit is time-barred should be set aside. Accordingly, I do so and hold that the suit was filed within limitation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that it has been clearly established on the record that the defendant managed to obtain the document in question from the plaintiff by misrepresentation and by practising fraud upon him. After having heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of fraud, I entertained