' This revision petition under section 115, C. P. C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-6-1980 whereby the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal of Muhammad Shafi, respondent by reversing the finding on the question of limitation and by holding that the suit was not barred by time. The other issue having already been decided in favour of respondent-plaintiff the suit was decreed, Learned Counsel for the petitioners defendants in support of the revision petition argued that the finding on the issue of limitation returned by the learned first appellate Court is erroneous and that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on issues Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 merit to re set aside as those were returned by misreading evidence and by misconceiving established propositions of law. The findings returned by the learned trial Court on issues Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 cannot be allowed to be challenged for the first time in revision as the petitioners- defendants failed to challenge the same before the learned first appellate Court. It is true that the suit having been dismissed on the question of limitation the petitioners need not have filed an appeal or even cross-objections even if some of the issues were decided against them but they could have supported the decree of dismissal of suit without filing cross-objections on grounds decided against them or on a pure question of law before the first appellate Court, This was not Jonas is apparent from the observations of learned first appellate Court that "the respondents (present petitioners) did challenge the finding of the learned lower Court on these issues and did not file any cross-objections so in law the respondents have accepted the findings of the learned Lowe Court on these issues". This observation was not challenged in the memo of revision and it is not the case of the petitioners that they had in fact challenged the said findings before the learned first appellate Court. In this view of the matter the petitioners cannot be allowed to agitate against the findings which stand accepted before the first appellate Court for the first time in revision. This brings me to the question of limitation. The sale evidenced by the mutation sanctioned on 12-2- 1972 was challenged in the suit instituted on 26-3-1973. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this respect was that Article 14 of the Limitation Act applies and as the suit was filed after expiry of more than one year, the same was barred by time. There is no merit in this submission. In Nirman Singh and others v. Thakur Lal Rudra Partab Narain Singh and others (1) it was observed that :- It is an error to suppose that proceedings for the mutation of names are judicial proceedings in which the title to and the proprietary rights in immovable property are determined. They are nothing of the kind as has been pointed out times innumerable by the Judicial Committee. They are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid."
' These entries in the revenue record fail to affect title of the rightful owner and as such Article 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits brought to challenge the transactions though incorporated in revenue record on the grounds which render a transaction void, ineffective in law including fraud. it may also be added that for a suit to declare a transaction void and ineffective on the ground of fraud, right to sue accrues from the date of discovery of fraud. It will, therefore, be seen that the learned first appellate Court was right in holding that the suit was not barred by time.
After returning the said finding there was no option for the learned first appellate Court
(1) AIR 1926 P C 100 ' but to decree the suit as findings returned on other issues in favour of the respondent-plaintiff had remained unchallenged.
2. For the reasons given above, this revision fails and is dismissed with costs.