TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the suit for declaration and injunction filed on 21st of August, 1990 was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short `the Act') which could only be filed within three years from the date when the cause of action arose. 2. Therefore, the only question that needs to be decided in this appeal by us is: whether the suit for declaration and injunction could be held to be barred by limitation as the same was filed after 18 years of the alleged compromise between the parties. For the purpose of deciding this question on limitation, as noted hereinabove, which was only urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants before us and the High Court also decided the second appeal on this question of limitation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid concurrent judgments of the courts below, a second appeal was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was dismissed on 26th of May, 1972. Subsequent to the dismissal of the second appeal, the appellants and the respondents compromised their dispute and such compromise was reduced into writing on 26th of October, 1972. According to this compromise, the appellants were entitled to retain half of the 2/3rd share of the land in dispute and the respondents were to retain the other half. The respondents admitted in their compromise deed that the appellants had taken possession of their share of land. When this compromise was presented before the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about a week back when the plaintiffs have for the first time come to know about the wrong entries in the revenue records and now when the defendants have refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs. On the basis of the averments made as noted herein above, the plaintiffs/appellants filed the aforesaid suit for the following reliefs: a) That the plaintiffs are the joints owners in possession, in equal share of 1/3rd share in land measuring 286 kanal 5 marlas comprised in khewat No. 359, Khatoni No. 702 to 710, all land as per jamabandi for the year 1985-86, situated in the area of village Sukhchain, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa and that the revenue records showing the defendants to be the owners of 12/18th share of 2/3rd share in the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntered appearance and led evidence in support of their respective cases also on the point of limitation, the trial court held, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Act as the cause of action arose in 1972 i.e. on the date of compromise entered into by the parties. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the trial court also on the ground of limitation. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs/appellants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Hissar who also dismissed the appeal of the appellants, inter alia, holding that the suit was barred by limitation. Consequent thereupon, the appellants approached the High Court in second appeal and the High Court also dismissed the appeal holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants before us submitted that there could be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. In support of this contention the learned senior counsel strongly relied on a decision of the Privy Council reported in AIR 1930 PC 270 [ Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan and Ors .]. In this decision their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as follows: There can be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the suit was barred by limitation could not arise at all. Accordingly, we are of the view that the right to sue accrues when a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendants when they refused to admit the claim of the appellants, i.e. only seven days before filing of the suit. Therefore, we are of the view that within three years from the date of infringement as noted in Paragraph 16 of the plaint, the suit was filed. Therefore, the suit which was filed for declaration on 21st of August, 1990, in our view, cannot be held to be barred by limitation. Therefore, the courts below including the High Court had proceeded entirely on a wrong footing that the cause of action arose on the date of entering into the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
