ORDER

1. This petition is directed against an order passed on I.A. Nos.3 and 4, by which the defendants have sought for rejection of the plaint.

2. The grounds urged for rejection of the plaint was that: Plaintiff - Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa had instituted O.S. No.752/2006 against four defendants i.e., Lakshmamma, Chandrappa, C.Mohan Babu and M.C.Shankar and the suit was for a bare injunction. In the said suit, Lakshmamma denied the title of Munivenkatappa and similarly Chandrappa, defendant No.2 also filed a written statement denying the title of Munivenkatappa.

3. After contest, the Trial Court by judgment dated 30.01.2018 proceeded to dismiss the suit for injunction and also observed that plaintiff – Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa was required to institute a declaratory suit in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar 1 as the question of title which was disputed could not be gone into in a suit for injunction.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa preferred an appeal in R.A. No.96/2020, and in this appeal, Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa filed an application seeking for permission to withdraw the suit and to thereafter file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. This request of Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa was, however, rejected by the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court proceeded to reject the application while Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. And Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2033 considering the appeal on merits. The Appellate Court dismissed the application filed seeking for permission to withdraw the appeal and seeking for liberty to file a fresh suit, and at the same time, the Appellate Court considered the appeal on merits and dismissed the same on

16.03.2021.

5. However, while dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Court granted liberty to Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa to file a comprehensive suit for title and possession, if so advised, in view of the principles laid down in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra).

6. On 09.08.2021 i.e., five months after the dismissal of the appeal, Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa and three other plaintiffs, who were the children of Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa’s brother, jointly filed a suit seeking for a declaration that plaintiff No.1 was the absolute owner and in possession of the suit Item No.1 property and for a further declaration that plaintiffs No.2 to 4 were the owners in possession of the suit schedule Item No.2 property. A consequential decree of injunction was also sought for. In this suit, applications were filed by the defendants, as stated above, for rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit being one for declaration had become time barred.

7. The said applications have been rejected and hence, this Revision.

8. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa sought to contend that the right to sue first accrued on Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa to seek a declaration when the written statement was filed by Lakshmamma i.e., the predecessor in the interest of defendants No.1 to 14 and since the written statement had been filed on 09.11.2006, the present suit filed in the year 2021 was clearly barred by limitation by virtue of Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, Sri.C.Shankar Reddy, on the other hand, contended that it was permissible for Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa to ignore the plea regarding the denial of title until the same was adjudicated by the Civil Court and only when the Civil Court stated that Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa had approached the Court seeking a declaratory relief, the right to sue first accrued.

10. He also submitted that this argument would be of no consequence since the suit had been instituted not only by Sri.V.T.Munivenkatappa, but also plaintiffs No.2 to 4, who were claiming an independent right over Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. He submitted that, admittedly, plaintiffs No.2 to 4 were not parties in the earlier suit and therefore, the question of right to sue accruing to the