The court held that the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction was barred by limitation, reinforcing the importance of timely legal action as defined under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

The present appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2008, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, (for short, 'first Appellate Court'), in R.A.No.111/2007 and Cross Appeal No.142/2008. These appeals arise from the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,) Doddaballapura, (for short, 'trial Court'), in O.S.No.17/2004, for dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. It was belonging to Patel Narasegowda and his younger brother Nagaiah. They got partitioned the properties about 55 years prior to filing of the suit and the suit property fell to the share of Nagaiah. Nagaiah died in the year 1982, leaving behind his wife, Jayamma. Jayamma has also passed away. Consequently, Patel Narasegowda, the father of the plaintiff, succeeded to the property and became its owner. His name was mutated in the revenue records, and he had even obtained loan from the bank by mortgaging the property.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant was interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. It is the contention of the defendant that, during the life time of Smt.Jayamma, he had purchased the land in Survey No.342/1 from Smt.Jayamma, but that property was different from the suit property. Due to interference of the defendant, father of the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.237/1990, for the relief of injunction before the Court of Munsiff, Doddaballapura. The said suit was dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.70/1997. The said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Taking advantage of the dismissal of the appeal, the defendant once again began to claim the suit land illegally and attempted to trespass into the property. With these reasons, prayed for the relief of declaration and injunction against the defendant.

4. The contention of the defendant before the trial Court was that the suit property had fallen to the share of Nagaiah in the partition between Patel Narasegowda and his brother Nagaiah, and after Nagaiah’s death, his wife became absolute owner of suit property and she sold the property in favour of the defendant. Thus, the defendant became absolute owner and in possession of suit property. Narasegowda had no right over the suit property. Defendant also stated about suit and appeal filed by Narasegowda and dismissal of the same. Further it is stated that Civil Miscellaneous Case No.13/1998 (new No.5/2022) was filed for restoration of the appeal. The said petition is also dismissed and hence prayed to dismiss the suit. Further it is stated that Civil Miscellaneous Case No.13/1998 (new No.5/2022) was filed for restoration of the appeal. The said petition is also dismissed and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. The defendant further contended that the suit was barred by law of limitation i.e., Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The suit is also barred by the principles of res judicata under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. From the rival contentions of the parties