B.K. Mullick, J.

1. The plaintiff is the tenant and the defendant is the landlord. The Record of Rights shows the plaintiff to be liable to pay rent to the landlord at a certain rate. In 1908 the landlord obtained an ex parte decree for rent against the plaintiff. In execution of that decree he brought to sale a holding and purchased it himself, but the tenant paid up the amount within one month and got the holding back. In 1912 the landlord again sued for rent. The plaintiff contested that suit, but failed and a decree was made against him on the 1st of August 1912. The plaintiff states that his cause of action accrued from the date of that decree and he brought the present suit on the 7th of October 1912, for a declaration that he is a lakheraj raiyat on the land and that he is not liable to pay rent to the defendant. The Munsif decreed the suit, but the Subordinate Judge has dismissed it on the ground of limitation; hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.

2. The only point urged before me is whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. The learned Vakil for the appellant relies upon Ram Gulam Singh v. Bishnu Pargash Narain Singh 11 C.W.N. 48 and says that the Record of Rights is at best only evidence creating a presumption of title and that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to sue to set aside that presumption; that the suit is not one that has any reference to the Record of Rights, but that it is a suit which he is entitled to bring under the general law and that his cause of action properly dates from the last rent decree. It is obvious that the suit is a declaratory suit. The learned Vakil for the appellant does not admit, but it is quite clear, that the suit is one substantially under section 111A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff carefully refrains from making any reference to the Record of Rights, because he knows that the period of limitation for getting declaratory relief in respect of entries in a Record of Rights is six years from the date of the publication. That has been decided in various cases and also in the case of Ram Gulam Singh v. Bishnu Pargash Narain Singh 1 C.W.N. 48, which has been cited by the learned Vakil for the appellant. The only question is, whether the present suit is one under section 111A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In my opinion it is. Although no reference is made to the Record of Rights, the effect of the declaration which the plaintiff seeks will be to correct the Record of Rights, and that being so, it makes no difference whether the plaintiff does in so many words attack the Record of Rights or not. The cause of action, therefore, accrued not on the date of the decree mentioned by the plaintiff, but on the date of the publication of the Record, and as that took place more than six years before the institution of the suit, the suit is barred. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.