The right to sue for a declaration accrues when the right asserted is denied or challenged, and a mutation does not create title.

Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala dated June 30, 1999. Admitted facts.

2. The land, subject matter of dispute, in tikka Kutlahar, Mauza Talara, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, was owned and possessed by four brothers, namely, Hari Singh, Punjab Singh, Filo and Chuhru, all sons of Sunder. Thus, each of the brothers had l/4th share in this land. They had one sister, Chinto Devi, who died in the year 1959 leaving behind her daughters Parkash Devi and Brahmo Devi. Sh. Chuhru died intestate in the year 1972. He was not married and, therefore, issueless. On the death of Chuhru, mutation of his share was attested in favour of surviving brothers, e.g., Hari Singh, Punjab Singh and File as also in favour of Parkasho Devi and Brahmo Devi daughters of Chinto Devi. Mutation in respect of l/4th share was attested in dis-regard to the provisions of Section 12 of the Hindu Succession Act as Chinto Devi had pre-deceased her brother Chuhru and, therefore, only the surviving three brothers were entitled to inherit the share of Chuhru to the extent of l/3rd each.

3. In the year 1991, plaintiffs, successors-in-interest of Hari Singh, Punjab Singh and Filo filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners/co-sharers in possession of the disputed property and revenue entries to the contrary showing Parkasho Devi and Brahmo Devi daughters of Smt. Chinto to be co-sharers to the extent of l/4th share of Chuhru, are wrong, illegal, merely paper entries, against law, null and void as their mother Chinto Devi had pre-deceased Chuhru and, therefore, they were not entitled to inherit any part of the share of Chuhru in the presence of his brothers. A prayer to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and from getting the same partitioned from the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on the basis of wrong entires, was also made.

4. It was the case of the plaintiffs that inspite of the entries in the revenue record, the plaintiffs and their predecessors continued to be in possession and it was only when defendants filed partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, that they visited the Patwari and saw the records and came to know that names of Parkasho Devi and Brahmo Devi were recorded as co-sharers in respect of the disputed land.

5. The defendants resisted the suit. It was pleaded that the mutation of inheritance in respect of the share of Chuhru was rightly attested. The plaintiffs having not objected to the attestation of the mutation at any point of time, cannot now challenge the revenue entries showing the defendants to be co-sharers. The suit, it was further pleaded, is barred by the period of limitation.

6. Learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside by the judgment and decree impugned in this second appeal.

7. Learned First Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs are in possession of the entire disputed land and further concluded that the suit is not barred by the period of limitation as the plaintiffs came to know about the wrong entry only in the year 1994. Learned First Appellate Court also found that no cloud was cast on the title of the plaintiffs and they could file the suit when defendants actually threatened to take forcible possession.

8. I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Rama Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents and have also perused the record.

9. The only contention raised by Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants is that the suit was barred by the period of limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The argument is that mutation of inheritance of the share of Chuhru was attested on 16.3.1973 in terms of mutation No. 731. Therefore, under Article 58, t