G.P. SHARMA, Mem.–This is second appeal filed under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment/decree of the R.A.A. Kota passed in appeal No.47/92 dated 19.7.93 arising out of the facts that one suit was filed by the present appellant under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the Court of Assistant Collector Kota with the averment that khasra No.92 area 12.11 bighas equivalent to new khasra No.342 area 0.04 hactare, 343 area 1.88 hactare. This land was purchased by the Chanda respondent No.1 from Narsingh. This being violation of Section 42 as the seller was member of scheduled caste and purchaser was non-scheduled caste and non-scheduled tribe person. Hence, the suit was filed under Section 175 of the Act. This suit was after trial dismissed on 8.9.91 on the point of limitation. Aggrieved from this first appeal was preferred in the Court of R.A.A. but to no avail and said appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 19.7.93. Hence, the present second appeal. (2). We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. (3). Learned counsel for the appellant argued that sale took place on 11.1.60 and the purchaser did not take any steps to get mutation in his favour but only in st.2038 i.e. 1981 during the settlement he got his name entered and from this entry government happen to know about this factum of transfer which violets provisions of Sec.42. He submits limitation should be allowed from the date of entering his name in the revenue record. (4). On the contrary, other side argued that since under the law word is date of transfer from which limitation should be reckoned, therefore, mutation has no significance. (5). After careful examination of the submission made by the rival parties we are of the view that since under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy act First Schedule attached to it period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of transfer or sublease. In the present case since it is admitted fact that registered sale deed took place on 11.1.60, therefore, normally period of limitation should be started from this date and not from the date of mutation. Under the circumstances we are unable to see any jurisdictional error committed by two subordinate courts while passing the impugned judgment. In the present case since it is admitted fact that registered sale deed took place on 11.1.60, therefore, normally period of limitation should be started from this date and not from the date of mutation. Under the circumstances we are unable to see any jurisdictional error committed by two subordinate courts while passing the impugned judgment. No other point was raised and argued by the parties. Consequently the present second appeal fails and as such it is dismissed. (6). Pronounced in open Court.