G.M. Lodha, J.
1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,000/-, which has been decreed by both the courts.
2. The plaintiffs case is that he had a licence for cutting the trees from his own land and he cut the trees. But, the Tehsildar, Karauli made a complaint and the wood and coal prepared was seized and auctioned for Rs. 2,015/-. The S. D. M. convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 800/- and forfeited the amount of Rs. 2,015/-, the price of wood and coal auctioned. In appeal, the conviction was set aside and the penalties were quashed.
3. The State has come in appeal on the ground that firstly the forfeiture of coal and wood was not set aside, and the implication of setting aside the penalty was only the fine. This submission of the State has been repelled by both the Courts and rightly so, because, firstly when the offence is not proved and the plaintiff had a right to hold and dispose of the property consisting of wood and coal, the forfeiture itself becomes illegal as a logical corollory of setting aside conviction. Secondly, as discussed by the first appellate court, forfeiture of the wood is a penalty Under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and, therefore, once the penalty was set aside, it included the penalty of forfeiture also unless expressly that penalty was withheld. Confronted with the above situation, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the suit was time-barred. This submission of the State is also devoid of any legal force, because when the forfeiture was made under the order of the competent authority, the suit could have been filed only after the order of its reversion. No civil court could have decreed a suit, if the goods were forfeited under the provisions of Section 86 and so long that conviction continued to hold good. It is only when the conviction was set aside and the penalty of forfeiture was quashed that the limitation started running. It is not in dispute that if the period is spent in notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., and the Sunday, which intervened, is excluded then the suit was within time. I am, therefore, convinced that the suit of the plaintiff was within time and the plea of limitation is untenable both on facts and law.
4. Then it is argued that the plaintiff had no right to file a suit. Here again, the first appellate Court has held that this plea was not taken in the grounds of appeal, and from the evidence on record it transpires that the plaintiff was the owner of this property. I am not inclined to interfere in this finding also, which is primarily a finding of fact.
5. The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.