The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to file a suit for declaration of title is continuous and not barred by limitation as long as the title to the property subsists.

1. Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1.

2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 16.07.2010 on the following substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has misconstrued the provisions of the Limitation Act of Article 58 to the effect that the suit for declaration of title is barred by the law of limitation when there was no claim of adverse possession raised by the Respondents herein?

2. Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court to the effect that the Appellants have failed to identify the suit property are perverse in view of the fact that the contents of Para 1 and 2 of the plaint have not been denied by the Respondents in their written statement?

3. Whilst dealing with the first substantial question of law, Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has taken me through the plaint filed by the Appellant wherein it has been clearly stated that the Appellant obtained a certified copy of the survey records in August, 1996 and had filed the suit in May, 1999. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that these averments in the plaint have not been disputed by the Respondents in the written statement and, as such, the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned Judgment on the ground that the suit filed by the Appellant for declaration of title was barred by limitation. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that merely because the survey records were kept for objection, by itself does not mean that the Appellant/owners of the properties have to file a suit for declaration of title within a period of three years therefrom. Learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has misconstrued the limitation Act and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1, with that regard has supported the Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. The learned Counsel has pointed out that once the survey records are admittedly in the name of the Respondents, it was incumbent upon the Appellant to file such suit within a period of three years from the date the survey records came to be promulgated. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the records. Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, is justified to contend that the averments in the plaint that the Appellant obtained the certified copy of the survey records only in August, 1996 have not been disputed by the Respondents in the written statement. Be that as it may, the suit filed by the Appellant is for declaration of title. Under the provisions of the Limitation Act, specially Section 27 of the Limitation Act of 1963, the right to immoveable properties stands prescribed as per the period provided in the schedule of the said Act. Article 65 and 66 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that title to the property is lost only by adverse possession for the specified period. In the present case, the finding of the learned Judge that the suit for declaration of title is barred by limitation, cannot be accepted. The cause of action to file a suit for declaration of title is continuous and, as such, a suit can be filed as long as the title to the property subsists. In the present case, unless and until the Respondents establish that they have become owners by adverse possession, the findings of the learned Judge that the suit is barred by limitation is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in