Devadoss, J.

1. The plaintiff alleges that he is the jenmi of the plaint property and that he applied to have the land registered in his name in 19 7 and that, on the objection of the defendant, the Revenue Authorities refused to change the registry. He, therefore, sues for a declaration that he is the jenmi of the plaint land. Both the Courts dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation under Article 120. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

2. It is found that the plaintiffs father applied in 1903 for change of revenue registry to his name and the Settlement Officer ordered that the registry should stand as it did. It is contended on his behalf that the suit is not barred by limitation as there was a fresh cause of action in 1917. He relies upon Brojendra Kishore Roy v. Bharat Chandra Roy [Abdul Razac] (1). The facts in that case were the plaintiffs claimed title to some property by purchase at a sale in execution of a mortgage-decree. They took possession but were resisted by the defendants and the property was attached under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code. The order of the Magistrate was made on 25th April 1902. On the 3rd July and 11th October 1909 t