Special limitation for revenue sale challenges applies even where fraud is alleged, with time running from discovery only.

A suit challenging a revenue sale alleged to be fraudulent or irregular was treated as subject to the special six-month limitation under Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, because that provision applies to proceedings taken professedly under the Act even when irregular or defective. Fraud did not displace the special bar; it could only postpone the starting point until discovery, consistent with Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, while Section 6 preserved the special period. The sale was regarded as a proceeding under the Act on the facts stated, so the suit had to be filed within six months from discovery of the fraud and was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit to set aside a revenue sale, alleged to be fraudulent and irregular, was governed by the special six-month limitation under Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, or by the general law of limitation, and whether fraud displaced the special bar.

Analysis: The special provision in Section 59 applied to suits complaining of proceedings taken professedly under the Act, even where the proceedings were irregular or defective. The limitation period was directed to the fact of the revenue sale and not merely to its validity. Fraud did not enlarge the special period; at most, it postponed the starting point until discovery, as recognised by Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, while Section 6 preserved the special period unaffected. The sale in question was a proceeding under the Act because there was an arrear and the property stood in the relevant patta, so the suit had to be brought within six months from discovery of the fraud. The authorities relied on by the appellant were distinguished on the footing that they involved absence of power to sell or a different statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The suit was governed by the special limitation in Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, subject to the rule on discovery of fraud, and was time-barred.

---