JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member- This is a plaintiff's second appeal against judgment and decree dated 28.9.1978 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, allowing appeal dismissing plaintiff's suit by setting aside judgment and decree dated 31.7.1978 passed by A.S.D.O. Mahrauni, district Lalitpur, decreeing plaintiff's suit. 2. Kura filed the suit.On 9.5.1977 i.e. 1385 fasli against Sunwa and others u/s 229-B/209 of Act I of 1951 is respect of plot nos. 231 and 233/3 total area 3.05. acres situate in village Bargata Pargana Nandaora Tahsil Mahroni district Lalitpur with the allegation that the name of defendant Sunwa was wrongly entered in class 9, that Rabuda was his grand father, although in the papers Rabuda had been wrongly shown as his father, that the defendant got his name entered in class 9 taking advantage of minority and helplessness of the plaintiff who belongs to a schedule caste and that no. P.A. 10 or any other intimation has been issued to him in respect of the entry of class 9. He, therefore, prayed for a declaration in his favour and for the eviction of the defendant, if he was found to be an possession. 3. Defendant Sunwa denied the case of the plaintiff and alleged that he had been in adverse possession to the full knowledge of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had no concern with the land, that the defendant had been in possession from before the abolition of zamindari and that he had acquired bhumidhari rights by virtue of his adverse possession. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It has been argued that 12 years limitation is applicable from 14.10.1971 and the suit was filed within time. Reliance has been placed on 1977 R.D page 40. It has been further argued that no finding on other point has been given an oral an documentary evidence has not been appraised. 6. It has been argued in reply that both courts held that the plaintiff became major in 1373 fasli and the suit was filed on 9.5.1977 not within 3 years after obtaining majority, therefore, suit was time-barred and the finding of the lower appellate court requires no interference, Reliance has been placed on 1976 R.D. page 279. It has been further argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to correct the parentage of the plaintiff. 7. It has been further argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to correct the parentage of the plaintiff. 7. The real parentage of the plaintiff instead of recording his grandfather as his father was pleaded and the trial court had every right to order for correcting the record. 8. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties here and has been found by both the courts below that the plaintiff became major in 1373 fasli i.e. in 1965-66. The suit was filed on 9.5.1977 i.e. in 1384 fasli within 11 years of obtaining majority. The question for determination is what will be the limitation for filing a suit u/s 209 of Act I of 1951 after obtaining whether it will be 3 years only as provided in the schedule of the limitation Act or the limitation provided for the suit in the schedule of Z.A. Act. It is well settled law that limitation provided in the Special Act will over-ride the limitation provided in the Limitation Act. 9. The limitation u/s 209 of Act I of 1951 from 27.3.1959 to 13.10.1971 was six years and from 14.10.1971 it is 12 years. The plaintiff became major in 1965 then six year's limitation was applicable for filing ejectment suit u/s 209 of Act I of 1951 which could have been filed and would have been within limitation upto 30th June 1972 within that limitation of six years from 14.10.1971 the limitation for filing such suit became 12 years, therefore, 12 years limitation will be applicable in the present case and not 3 years limitation provided in the schedule of the limitation Act in reference to Section 6 of the Limitation Act. 10. Section 6 (1) of the Limitation Act runs as follows :- "6 Legal disability (1) where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the name period after the disability has ceased as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefore in the third column of the Schedule." 11. It will be clear that after cessation of disability i.e. on obtaining majority the limitation provided in the Limitation Act would have run from the date of the majority and would have applied if that limitation, would have been applicable i.e. limitation of 3 years but in the present case the Limitation under the Z.A. Act will over-ride the limitation given in the schedule of the Limitation Act as provision of Special Act. Therefore, from the date of the Majority the Limitation began to run which was originally six years and when the limitation of six years was subsisting and available the limitation was enhanced to 12 years therefore, the 12 years Limitation was applicable and the suit filed by the plaintiff was, therefore, within limitation. Reliance can be placed on 1977 R.D. page 40 Onkar Nath Duhey v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation and others. 12. The ruling reported in 1976 R.D. page 279 Suprendra v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation & others, was regarding application of Section 7 of the Limitation Act and not regarding application of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, therefore it is not applicable to the present case. 13. The learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, decided the first appeal wrongly on point of limitation and did not consider the oral and documentary evidence on record, therefore, this appeals is liable to be allowed. The judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Commissioner are liable to be set aside and the first appeal is liable to be remanded for decision on merits after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record. 14. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree passed by the lower appellant court are hereby set aside and that of the trial court are restored and the first appeal is remanded to the court of learned Additional Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi for deciding the first appeal on merit after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record.