A suit for title declaration without a corresponding claim for possession is not maintainable, particularly when rights have been extinguished by adverse possession.

1. The revisional application under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant No. 1 in a suit for declaration of title and is directed against the Order No. 42 dated March 24, 2021 passed by the 4th Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Howrah in the said suit being Title Suit No. 543 of 2015. On the death of the original plaintiff, the present opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 have been substituted in the said suit in her place as plaintiffs.

2. The petitioner by an application under Order VII R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure prayed for rejection of the plaint of the said suit inter alia, on the grounds that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant no. 1 and the suit is barred by limitation as well as under S.34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 .

3. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has dismissed the said application holding that bare perusal of the plaint discloses some causes of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit and those are not illusory, whether the defendants have any right, title and interest over the suit property or whether the documents filed by the plaintiffs are strong enough to prove their case cannot be decided without holding a proper trial.

4. Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner, impugning the said order of the learned Trial Judge, argues as follows: -
I. Art.58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes that to get a relief of declaration in a suit, the suit is required to be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues to the plaintiff, successive violation of the right would not give rise to fresh cause and the suit would be liable to be dismissed if it is filed beyond the said period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrues to the plaintiff, to fortify his said argument he lends support of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in 2011 (9) SCC 126 : (AIR 2011 SC 3590), in the case of L.C. HANUMANTHAPPA(SINCE DEAD) REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VS. H.B. SHIVAKUMAR reported in 2016 (1) SCC 332 : (AIR 2015 SC 3364), in the case of DAHIBEN VS. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) DEAD THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS reported in 2020 (7) SCC 366 : (AIR 2020 SC 3310) and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of GPT HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VS. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL and OTHERS. reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Cal. 3800 : (AIROnLine 2018 Cal. 1189).
II. The cause of action of the present suit arose on different dates, as stated in paragraph 27 of the plaint, first of such dates being October 15, 2011 the suit was required to be filed within three years from the said date as mandated under Art.58 of the Schedule to the , but the suit since has been filed beyond the said period of limitation on April 08, 2015, it is barred by limitation, consequently, the plaint of the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII R.11 of the Code.
III. The plaintiffs are admittedly out of possession of the suit property, in the suit the plaintiffs are praying relief of declaration only without any relief of possession, therefore the suit, as it is framed, is clearly barred under the proviso appended to S.34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 . To explain the object of the said provision of the said Act, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VENKATARAJA AND OTH