The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Article 58, and the determination of the accrual of cause of action for suits for declaration.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

1.The appellants (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as defendants) seeking decree of

declaration declaring that plaintiffs are the co-owners in the allotment of the suit plot No.13, Type A-1, Sector-26, Rohini, New Delhi and that defendant No. 5 is not the exclusive owner of the said plot in suit. Plaintiffs further sought relief for permanent injunction seeking restraint order against the defendant No.5 from selling, conveying, transferring or alienating the said plot to anyone whosoever and for restraining defendants No.1 to 4 from delivering the physical possession and the titles of the said plot to defendant No.5 or his nominee. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 13.5.2005. Against this order, plaintiffs filed first regular appeal before the Additional District Judge. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate court vide its judgment dated 8.12.2006. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court, the second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CPC).

2. Following substantial question of law was formulated on 3.8.2009:-

construed the provision of Limitation Act while coming to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation and also the date from which the cause of action is alleged to have accrue in favour of plaintiff while

.3.Mr. J.C. Mahindroo, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, has contended that the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs on 9.1.1976 when the lands of Sh. Rama Nand were acquired and thereafter it arose when Sh. Rama Nand died and his estate was inherited by his heirs. He argued that cause of action further arose when application for alternative plot was made by the defendant No.5 by playing fraud and claiming himself to be the sole and exclusive heir of the deceased Rama Nand. It further arose when objection applications were made with the defendants No.1 to 4 on various dates. He further submitted that cause of action again arose when Nahar Singh died on 14.5.1993 and plaintiffs being his legal heirs stepped into his shoes and again it arose when the allotment was made and then when the defendant No.5 started

.holding himself to be the exclusive allottee and tried to negotiate for sale of the allotment of the suit plot and lastly on 27.5.2000 when defendant No.5 finally refused to accede to the request of the plaintiffs. Therefore, according to him the suit has been filed within the period of limitation of three years which started running against the plaintiffs on 27.5.2000 and the suit was filed on 29.5.2000 i.e. well within the period of limitation.

.4.Mr. S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the defendant No.5 has submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs as per their own admission in the plaint is barred by period of limitation. Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act prescribes period of limitation of three years for a suit seeking declaratory relief and limitation started running when the right to sue first accrued. He further argued that the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest had come to know about the misuse of the impugned relinquishment deed executed on 21.10.1985 vide letter dated 8.3.1991 and they has raised objection vide their application dated 5.4.1991 objecting to the

.allotment of the plot to the defendant No.5. He further argued that suit property was allotted to defendant No.5 by the DDA in the year 1994.

5.It is submitted by the learned counsel that draw of lots is the consequence of recommendation and allotment on the basis of relinquishment deed and plaintiffs cannot question the draw of lots unless the relinquishment deed, recommendation, sanction and allotment made in the year 1991 and 1994 are declared null and void. Therefore, apparently the relief of