LexDAYA SINGH & ANR. versus GURDEV SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 1 S.C.R. 194 DAYA SINGH & ANR. V. GURDEV SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5339 of 2002) JANUARY 07, 2010 [TARUN CHATIERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ] Limitation Act, 1963: c Schedule - Article 58 - Suit for declaration - Dismissed by courts below holding the same as barred by limitation on the ground that it was filed after 18 years of the compromise - HELD: Question of filing of suit before the right accrued to plaintiffs by compromise could not arise until and unless D infringement of that right was noticed by one of the parties - Right to sue accrued a week prior to filing of the suit when a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by defendants was given as they refused to admit the claim of plaintiffs - Therefore, the suit cannot be held to be barred by E limitation - Judgment of High Court set aside and matter remitted to it for decision on merits expeditiously - Cause of action. A compromise relating to shares in the suit property was entered into between the plaintiff-appellants and the F predecessors-in-interest of the defendant-respondents on 26.10.1972. The plaintiffs filed a suit on 21.8.1990 for declaration that they were in possession as owner of 11 9th share and in joint possession of half of the 2/3rd share of the land along with the respondents and the entries G in the revenue record of rights should be corrected. The trial court dismissed the suit accepting the defendants' plea that the suit having been filed after 18 years of the compromise, was barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 whereunder H 194 DAYA SINGH & ANR. v. GURDEV SINGH (DEAD) BY 195 L.RS. & ORS. the suit should have been filed within three years of the A compromise. The plaintiffs having remained unsuccessful in the first appeal as also in the second appeal, filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. In the instant case, the right to sue accrued when a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendants was given, as they refused B to admit the claim of the appellants, only seven days before filing of the suit. Therefore, as noted in paragraph C 16 of the plaint, the suit was filed within three years from · the date of infringement and, as such, the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. [Para 10] [202-E] Mt.Bolo vs. Mt. Kok/an and others AIR 1930 PC 270, D relied on. ' C. Mohammad Yunus vs. Syed Unnissa and others 1962 SCR 67 = AIR 1961 SC 808, referred to. 1.2. The courts below including the High Court had E proceeded entirely on a wrong footing that the cause of action arose on the date of entering into the compromise and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. Whether or not the compromise decree was acted upon and whether delivery of possession had taken place has to F be decided by the trial court before it could come to a proper conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. [Para 10] [202-E-G] 1.3. The question of filing the suit before the right accrued to the plaintiffs by compromise could not arise G until and unless infringement of that right was noticed by one of the parties. The High Court fell in grave error in holding that the suit was barred by time, and ignored to appreciate that the right of the appellants to have the H 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 1 S.C.R. A revenue record corrected arose when the appellants came to know about the wrong entry and the respondents failed to join the appellants in getting it corrected. The High Court was not justified in holding that more existence of a wrong entry in the revenue records e does not, in law, gave rise to a cause of action within the meaning of Article 58 of the Schedule to the Act. [Para 10) [202-H; 203-A-C] 1.4. The impugned judgment of the High Court on the question that the suit was barred by limitation cannot be C sustained. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter remitted back to it for decision on merits expeditiously. [Para 11) [203-C-D] D Case Law Reference: AIR 1930 PC 270 1962 SCR 67 relied on referred to para 7 para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E 5339 of 2002. From the Judgment & Order dated 10.9.2001 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 3416 of 1997. F D.K. Agrawal, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Anurag Pandey, R.P. Singh, Miihhi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.