JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to set aside a certain sale-deed dated the 6th of February 1894. The sale-deed has been found to have been duly executed by the plaintiff. The deed transferred certain zamindary property to the defendants. Various pleas have been raised, but it seems to us that there is one matter which is quite sufficient to decide the case, namely, that of limitation. The suit, although the relief is put in various ways, is in truth and in fact a suit to set aside the sale-deed. As long as this deed stands in the plaintiff's way, she is not entitled to any declaration of the title. It is quite clear that in so far as the suit is for setting aside the sale-deed, it is barred by limitation. Even if we were to treat the suit as a suit for declaration' of the plaintiff's title, there are numerous reasons why no Court could grant such decree. In the first place, as we have already mentioned, there is her own deed which the Court below has found that she executed. The Court below has also found that the defendants' names were entered in the revenue papers until the year 1905 when their names were fraudulently removed from those papers. These are quite sufficient grounds for refusing the plaintiff a declaration of title even if we were at liberty to treat the suit as one claiming that relief. We dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.