The key legal principle established in the judgment is the determination of the cause of action for a suit and the application of the Limitation Act 1963, Article 58, in assessing the time when the right to sue first accrued.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff who chases a set of concurrent decrees against him with both the courts having refused to declare his title to a small bit of property measuring 16 guntas in relation to which both sides have been at issue all these years in a litigation which appears to have commenced as far back as the year 1967.

( 2 ) IN this court the questions of law that have been formulated for consideration are : (i) Whether on facts held proved by the lower appellate court an inference that the possession of the plaintiffappellant in regard to the subject matter of the suit amounts to adverse possession ? (ii) Whether the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 16-12-1s67 or 4-5 1970?

( 3 ) HAVING heard Mr. Ajit. J. Gunjal for the appellant and Mr. Kamate for the respondent, it seems to me a finding on the second point is likely to give a quietus to the litigation even without expressing myself on the first point and, therefore, it is I propose to address myself to point No. 2, touching the question as to when the cause of action of the plaintiff arose, whether it was on 16-12-77 or on 4-12-70. It is not disputed that had the cause of action of plaintiff arisen on 16-12-77 the suit out of which this appeal arises would clearly by barred by time but not so if the cause of action is said to have arisen on a later day ie. on 4-5-70 The suit being one for declaration of title and injunction, the Article of limitation applicable would be undoubtedly Article 58, which reads : description of suit period of limitation time from which period begins to run. To obtain any other declaration three years when the right to sue first accrues on the language of the Article, computing of the period of limitation has to be done tracking it back to the time when the right to sue accrued for the first time.

( 4 ) IN order to identify as to when exactly the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff it may be necessary to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. The defendant claiming to be the owner of Sy. No. 835 which forms part of the suit property appears to have made an application to the revenue authorities for consideration of his complaint that 16 guntas of his land had been appropriated by the plaintiff. It is not denied that the lands are in the neighbourhood or vicinity of one another. In the application he made in December 1967 he had clearly alleged that the plaintiff had unauthorisedly encroached on 16 guntas of land and such encroachment came to light following the measurement of his land by a Surveyor. He had, therefore, asked for possession of the land encroached by the plaintiff and had sought the assistance of the revenue authorities in that behalf.

( 5 ) THAT application came to be disposed off by the Tahsildar on 4-5-70 as per order found in Ex. P3. The Tahsildar after duly hearing the plaintiff and the defendant took the view that the encro- echment complained of by the defendant was true and it had, therefore, to ba vacated. This finding is recorded despite the opposition mounted by the plaintiff asserting that he had not encroached on any portion of defendant's land and he was only in possession of his own land. In short, he claimed title to the disputed area claiming it to be his own property. Although Ex. P3 came to be made on 4-5-70. there can be little doubt that on the presentation of an application by the defendant to the revenue authorities complaining of encroachment of his land by the plaintiff and asking for restoration of possession there was a clear threat to the right of the plaintiff to the suit property. In other words, the defendant claiming to be the owner of the suit property had accused the plaintiff of having encroached upon it unauthorisedly and made it clear that he was, therefore, seeking the assistance of the revenue authorities for being put back into possession and in that process clearly putforward his right to the suit property denying thereby the right, t