The court established that the limitation for suits claiming declaration and possession of immovable property is 12 years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, countering the trial court's application of Article 58's 3-year limit.

ORDER :

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 14.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.8 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, whereby the amendment application filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2015 was filed for bare injunction. Subsequently, the revision petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint for the relief of declaration.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial Court had erroneously applied Section 58 of the Limitation Act and held that the limitation period for seeking declaration is three years from the date of cause of action. He would contend that the trial Court failed to consider the applicability of Section 65 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a limitation period of twelve years in cases relating to possession of immovable property based on title.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in S. Saravanan and others Vs. M. Dhanalakshmi and others , 2021 (6) CTC 821 the relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

16. It is settled position of law that a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession or for recovery of possession alone, Article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable and as such, the suit is to be instituted within 12 years from the date, when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. But the dispute is what will be the period of limitation, if a suit is filed for declaration of title to the property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining alienation or encumbering the property or restraining the interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

17. As already pointed out, according to the revision petitioners/defendants, Article 58 alone is applicable to the declaration and injunction, now claimed in the present suit and that since the same has been filed after the lapse of three years, the suit is barred by time. Even logically speaking, if a person, who is out of possession files a suit for declaring his title and to recover the possession, he will have 12 years period of limitation as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, but at the same time, if a person who is in continuous possession of the property files a suit to declare his title to the property and for permanent injunction restraining interference or restraining the alienation, can it be said that he will have only 3 years, invoking Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

18. It is pertinent to note that, as already pointed out, Part III of the first division deals with declaratory suits and the 1st two Articles in Part III are with respect to the forged instruments and adoption and that the remaining third Article i.e., 58 is a residuary and relates to any other declaration. But Part V of the first division specifically contemplates the period of limitation for suits relating to immovable property. It is necessary to refer the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Muniammal And Ors. vs Venkitammal And Others, reported in 1992(2) MLJ 425.

“9. We must give credit to the learned Counsel for the respondents that he realised in the course of the arguments that Article 58 of the Limitation Act shall have no application on the facts of this case. The error which the trial court committed in applying Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which is applied to suits relating to decrees and instruments was no doubt rectified by the court below, but the error