https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292610 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. en-us Tue, 23 Oct 1888 00:00:00 +0521 Fri, 01 Jan 2021 12:30:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292610 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Oct 1888 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292610