2010 Supreme(SC) 25

2010 (1) Supreme 14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam,JJ.
Daya Singh & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Gurdev Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5339 of 2002
Decided on : 7-01-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Cause of action for the purposes of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 accrues only when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or there is atleast a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right. Therefore, the mere existence of an adverse entry into the revenue record cannot give rise to cause of action.

Headnote:Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58 – Appeal against final judgment and order of High Court dismissing second appeal, on ground that the suit for declaration and injunction filed on 21.08.1990 was barred by limitation under Article 58 of Act, 1963 which could only be filed within three years from the date when the cause of action arose – Suit for declaration and injunction – Whether could be held to be barred by limitation as the same was filed after 18 years of the alleged compromise between the parties-In para 16 of the plaint, it had been clearly averred that the right to sue accrued when such right was infringed by defendants about a week back when the plaintiffs had for the first time come to know about the wrong entries in the record of rights and when the defendants had refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs-Admittedly, the suit was filed on 21st of August, 1990 – According to the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint, , if this statement is accepted, the question of holding that the suit was barred by limitation could not arise at all – Right to sue accrues when a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendants when they refused to admit the claim of the appellants, i.e. only seven days before filing of the suit- Therefore, within three years from the date of infringement as noted in Paragraph 16 of the plaint, the suit was filed – Therefore, the suit which was filed for declaration on 21st of August, 1990, could not be held to be barred by limitation-Hence, the courts below including the High Court had proceeded entirely on a wrong footing that the cause of action arose on the date of entering into the compromise and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation – No ground to agree with the findings of the High Court that the suit was barred by time because of its filing after 18 years of entering into the compromise. The question of filing the suit before the right accrued to them by compromise could not arise until and unless infringement of that right was noticed by one of the parties – High Court in impugned judgment, had fallen in grave error in holding that the suit was barred by time and had ignored to appreciate that rights of the appellants to have the revenue record accrued first arose in 1990 when the appellants came to know about the wrong entry and the respondents failed to join the appellants in getting it corrected – High Court was not justified in holding that mere existence of a wrong entry in the revenue records does not, in law, give rise to a cause of action within the meaning of Article 58 of the Act – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 10 to 12)

       Facts of the Case :

        Issue in consideration in present case was whether the suit for declaration and injunction could be held to be barred by limitation as the same was filed after 18 years of the alleged compromise between the parties.

       Findings of the Court :

        In para 16 of the plaint, it had been clearly averred that the right to sue accrued when such right was infringed by defendants about a week back when the plaintiffs had for the first time come to know about the wrong entries in the record of rights and when the defendants had refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 21st of August, 1990. According to the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint, , if this statement is accepted, the question of holding that the suit was barred by limitation could not arise at all. Right to sue accrues when a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendants when they refused to admit the claim of the appellants, i.e. only seven days before filing of the suit. Therefore, within three years from the date of infringement as noted in Paragraph 16 of the plaint, the suit was filed. Therefore, the suit which was filed for declaration on 21st of August, 1990, could not be held to be barred by limitation. Hence, the courts below including the High Court had proceeded entirely on a wrong footing that the cause of action arose on the date of entering into the compromise and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation, whether or not compromise decree was acted upon and whether delivery of possession had taken place has to be decided by the trial court before it could come to a proper conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. No ground to agree with the findings of the High Court that the suit was barred by time because of its filing after 18 years of entering into the compromise. The question of filing the suit before the right accrued to them by compromise could not arise until and unless infringement of that right was noticed by one of the parties. High Court in impugned judgment, had fallen in grave error in holding that the suit was barred by time and had ignored to appreciate that rights of the appellants to have the revenue record accrued first arose in 1990 when the appellants came to know about the wrong entry and the respondents failed to join the appellants in getting it corrected. High Court was not justified in holding that mere existence of a wrong entry in the revenue records does not, in law, give rise to a cause of action within the meaning of Article 58 ofthe Act. Impugned order of High Court was set aside. Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.