1. Of the authorities quoted the observation relied on in Devaguptapu Bhaskarudu v. Pamarthy Subarayudu 21 Ind. Cas. 840 : 38 M. 674 : 14 M.L.T. 572 : (1914) M.W.N. 53 : 26 M.L.J. 60 was made merely tentatively, Sankaran Nair, J. expressing no final opinion. The reference in Secretary of State for India v. Itlakkal Assutt 32 Ind. Cas. 755 : 19 M.L.J. 157 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 167 is merely to what passed during the argument between the learned Judges and Counsel; and it is, therefore, inconclusive Mamshah Thaika v. Secretary of State for India 49 Ind. Cas. 404 : 25 M.L.T. 227 : 9 L.W. 265 : 37 M.L.J. 213 : (1919) M.W.N. 688 and Tirumala Rao v. Kadekar Durgi Shettethi 22 Ind. Cas. 883 : (1914) M.W.N. 197 : 1 L.W. 134 deal with suits in which a declaration and injunction were in question. On the limitation applicable to such suits we express no opinion, because no question as to it ar ses in the present case. Here the only rel ef asked for is the recovery of the penal assessment imposed by Government under Section 5 of Act III of 1905 in one Fasli and it is urged that the lower Appellate Court should have held that the suit was barred because the plaintiff acquiesced in the levy