PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Way back in 1930, in the decision reported as AIR 1930 PC 270 Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan, Sir Binod Mitter, speaking for the Council, with reference to Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which provision correspondence to Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stated as under: -

“There can be no “right to sue” until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted.”

2. The view was cited with approval the next year in the decision reported as AIR 1931 PC 89 Gobinda Narayan v. Sham Lal. It was held that the expression ‘right to sue’ means the right to bring the particular suit with reference to which the plea of limitation is raised and that the starting point for limitation is when the rights are invaded.

3. The aforesaid views were summed up by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as AIR 1960 SC 335 Rukhmabai v. Laxminarayan in the following words: -

“The legal position may be briefly stated thus: the right to sue under Art.120 of the Lim. Act accrues when the defendant has clearly and unequivocally thr