A suit for declaration of title is barred by limitation if filed beyond the stipulated time after the cause of action accrues; validity of sale deed was upheld.

J U D G M E N T

Three suits were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment. The same is assailed in these appeals. The following are the suits and the appeals therefrom:-

2. The subject matter involved in these litigations is 3 Ares and 18 square metres equivalent to 8.5 cents with the residential building situated thereon. The property admittedly belonged to P.K.Rajan and Savithri (hereinafter :- 2 :-

referred to as the “plaintiffs”). They executed Ext.A10 Sale Deed No.3961/96 in favour of Baburajan and Jyothi (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants”). O.S.44/03 is filed by the plaintiffs contending that, they had borrowed amounts from defendants and from strangers, and to shield the property from creditors and to secure the debt payable to the plaintiffs, Ext.A10 Sale Deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs. Ext.A10 was in fact a sham document. It was agreed that, when the debt due to the defendants are repaid, a document will be registered in favour of the plaintiffs cancelling Ext.A10. According to the plaintiffs, the suit O.S.44 of 2003 seeking declaration of their title is necessitated since the defendants assert title over the property on the strength of Ext.A10. Sreejith, the third defendant impleaded therein as the son of the said Rajan and Savithri.

3. In OS 420/03, the plaintiffs seek for a prohibitory injunction against defendants, from :- 3 :-

forcefully evicting them from the plaint schedule property.

4. According to the defendants, Ext.A10 is an outright sale in its true sense. On conveyance of the property to them under Ext.A10, the defendants sought for some time to vacate the premises and accordingly they were permitted to reside in the building under Ext.B4 rent deed in favour of Sreejith, the son of the plaintiffs. Since they failed to vacate the building, rent control proceeding was initiated as RCP 11/99. In execution of the order of eviction, the plaintiffs and their son were evicted therefrom. The suit O.S.82/06 is filed by the defendants (Baburajan and Jyothi), against the plaintiffs and their son Sreejith for recovery of arrears of rent.

5. The trial court upheld Ext.A10 sale deed. It was held that the suit O.S.44/03 is barred by limitation. O.S.44/03 and O.S.420/03 were dismissed and O.S.82/06 was decreed, against which these appeals by the plaintiffs (P.K.Rajan and Savithri).

:- 4 :-

6. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.T.Krishnanunni and Sri.A.B.Mohanakumar on behalf of the appellants and Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar on behalf of the respondents.

7. O.S.44/03 which is a suit for declaration of title is the main suit. The relief claimed therein is for declaration of the plaintiffs' title on finding that Ext.A10 is only a security document. They have also prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction against alienation. The trial court held that the suit being one for declaration, Article 58 of the Limitation Act applies, and the suit filed beyond three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action is barred by limitation. In terms of Article 58 of the , time begins to run from the date on which the right to sue first accrues.

8. Learned counsel Sri.Mohanakumar would vehemently contend that the suit is not one for a mere declaration but contains a prayer for injunction also, and the cause of action arises :- 5 :-

only on infringment of the right or on a threat regarding infringment of the right. He relies on the decision of the Apex Court in C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa and others [ AIR 1961 SC 808 ]. This view has been reiterated in vari