The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for filing a suit for declaration and cancellation of documents begins when the right to sue first accrues, and the plaintiff's delay in seeking appropriate relief led to the dismissal of the suit.

1. The present suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been instituted by the plaintiff praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

“(i) Direct the defendants to place on record the copy of Regd. Sale deed No. 17999, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 3206, pages 58 to 66 dated 6.12.2010 for Rs. 32,50,000/- executed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to 5.

(ii) Pass a decree of Declaration/cancellation in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring/cancelling the Sale Deed bearing Documents No. 17999, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 3206, Pages 58 to 66 dated 6.12.2010 in respect of property/plot measuring 475 sq. yards i.e. 1/4th share in comprising Kh. No. 31/19/2 (1-18) situated in extended Lal Dora Abadi of Village Shakur Pur, Delhi-110034, as null and void.

(iii) To pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, thereby restraining defendants, their, agents, servants, legal representative etc. from alienating, selling or creating any third party interest and dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot measuring 475 sq. yards i.e. 1/4th share in comprising Kh. No. 31/19/2 (-18) situated in extended Lal Dora Abadi of village Shakur Pur, Delhi-110034.”

2. The case set up in the plaint is that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of 1/4th share in the subject land along with his brother, Jagdish and some other relatives, who are also owners to the extent of 1/4th share. In the month of October, 1993, Shri Kishan Singh (deceased husband of the defendant No. 1) had approached the plaintiff and asked him to execute documents for transferring his share in the subject land in the name of his brother, Jagdish and he had informed the plaintiff that Jagdish was unavailable due to some urgent work. The plaintiff claims to have signed some documents at the asking of the husband of the defendant No. 1.

3. It has been averred that later on, in the month of January, 1994 Shri Jagdish had met the plaintiff who told him that he had been asked by the defendant No. 1’s husband (Kishan Singh) to get the papers prepared for transfer of the subject land in his favour. At that time, Jagdish had told the plaintiff that Kishan Singh might have played a fraud on him. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff claims to have contacted Kishan Singh on 27.1.1994 and asked him to hand over the papers which he had made him sign but the former had flatly refused to do so and he informed the plaintiff that he had got the plaintiff’s 1/4th share in the subject land transferred in his wife’s name, i.e., the defendant No. 1 herein. On receiving this information, the plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 28.1.1994 on Shri Kishan Singh which was duly replied to by him, through counsel, vide letter dated 10.2.1994.

4. Without throwing any light on the stand taken by Kishan Singh in his reply refuting inter alia, the plaintiff’s claim and asserting that he had executed a set of documents for sale of his 1/4th share in the subject land in favour of the defendant No. 1, including a payment receipt, affidavit, registered will etc., the plaintiff has gone on to state in the plaint that on 17.2.1994, he came to know that the defendant No. 1 and her husband were negotiating with some persons in the village to sell the subject land and he had immediately filed a suit for permanent injunction against them in the very same year, which was ultimately dismissed on merits by the trial court.

5. In the captioned suit instituted by the plaintiff against defendant No. 1 and her husband, he had prayed for a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, legal representative, etc., from alienating, selling or creating any third party interest and dispossessing him from the subject land to the extent of his share therein.

6. Defendant No. 1 and her husband had contested the said suit and asserted in their written state