The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the accrual of the right to sue in a suit for declaration of title under Article 58 and Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. M. siddappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Rajashekar Seeri holding brief for Sri Mohan shanthana goudar, learned counsel for the respondent 2.

( 2 ) THIS revision arises from the judgment and order dated 23-12-1994 passed by the principal munsiff, gokak, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit as time barred. The trial court decided the issue as to limitation as a preliminary issue and after having found the suit to be time barred, dismissed the suit.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs' case, the plaintiffs who claim to be the sons of one ganapati bashettyappa kyasti of waderhatti and plaintiffs 3 and 4 are his brothers and all of them are cultivating land of their respective shares in the suit property. The plaintiffs claim in the suit a declaration of title to the effect that plaintiffs are kabzedars i. e. , holders in actual possession of the suit land bearing 22, waderhatti, gokak taluk. According to the plaintiffs, they were kabzedars and were paying the land revenue and the defendant/respondent who had been natives of waderhatti, claimed to be in possession of the suit land and according to the plaintiffs, defendant had been encroaching the suit land and creating trouble. So, plaintiffs/revision petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent namely in suit No. 155 of 1989. The plaintiffs alleged that on 25-7-1993, after the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit No. 155 of 1989, the defendant again attempted to take forcible possession of the land with a view of occupying it on the strength of judgment in o. s. No. 155 of 1989 whereby the trial court had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit No. 155 of 1989. The plaintiffs alleged the cause of action to have accrued on 25-7-1993 when the defendant caused; obstructions to the plaintiffs' possession and use.

( 4 ) THE defendant filed the written statement and alleged that the plaintiffs' suit for declaration is barred by time. The defendant alleged that in suit No. 155 of 1989 i. e. , in the previous litigation between the same parties, the defendant/respondent had clearly denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. He further took the plea of res judicata that the suit was barred by res judicata as well as by limitation from the date the plaintiffs' title was denied in the written statement filed in the suit.

( 5 ) THE trial court on the basis of the material on record consisting of certified copy of the written statement and also of paper-book of regular appeal No. 31 of 1991 in o. s. No. 155 of 1989 opined that the written statement in earlier suit No. 155 of 1989 had been filed on 18-1-1990 for the first time when the defendant in unequivocal terms denied the plaintiffs title over the said land. It, as such, opined that as the decree for declaration of title which has been claimed in the present suit was sought by the plaintiff as principal relief and injunction being the ancillary. The court opined that under Article 58 the phrase used is, "when the right to sue first occurs". So, it opined that the right to file suit first accrued on 18-1-1990 when written statement was filed by the defendant in o. s. no. 155 of 1989 and plaintiffs title in the land in suit was denied. The trial court, as such, opined that the suit No. 263 of 1993 filed on 27-7-1993 was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved from that order of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs suit on the ground of bar of limitation, the plaintiff has come up in revision under Section 115 of the CPC before this court.

( 6 ) THERE is no dispute that the principal relief and the main relief in the present suit has been declaration though injunction had also been sought for. The declaration that has been sought for is that the plaintiff is the kabzedar-holder in possession of the land.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant Sri B. M. Siddappa contended that, as alleged in o. s. No. 263 of 1993, the c