Limitation and clean hands in declaratory suits: right to sue accrues once, and suppressed unlawful possession defeats injunction.

Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applied to hold that limitation for a declaratory suit begins when the right to sue first accrues, not on successive threats or later discovery of the same claim. On the stated facts, awareness of the rival claim existed well before the suit, so the claim was time-barred. The appellants also failed to prove that the disputed land fell within the khasra numbers covered by their sale deed or that they were in lawful possession, as they produced no reliable demarcation material. Suppression of material facts and encroachment on public land also disentitled them to equitable injunctive relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit for declaration and injunction was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) whether the appellants proved that the disputed land formed part of the khasra numbers purchased by them and that they were in lawful possession; and (iii) whether the appellants were entitled to equitable relief in view of suppression of material facts and encroachment on public land.

Issue (i): whether the suit for declaration and injunction was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Article 58 uses the expression "when the right to sue first accrues", which marks a departure from Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The period of limitation therefore begins when the asserted right is first infringed or clearly threatened, and successive threats or later discovery of the same claim do not postpone limitation. On the facts, the appellants were aware at least from December 1990 of the stand that the land had vested in the Central Government and stood transferred to the Delhi Development Authority, and the suit filed in February 2000 was beyond three years from the first accrual of the right to sue.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation, against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the appellants proved that the disputed land formed part of the khasra numbers purchased by them and that they were in lawful possession.

Analysis: The appellants failed to produce reliable identifying material such as a site plan, aks-shijra or demarcation report to connect the restaurant site with the khasra numbers covered by their sale deed. The evidence showed that the sale documents did not establish the precise location of the property and did not rebut the official area plan and revenue material showing a different location. The burden to prove title and lawful possession remained on the appellants, and it was not discharged.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to prove title or lawful possession, against the appellants.

Issue (iii): whether the appellants were entitled to equitable relief in view of suppression of material facts and encroachment on public land.

Analysis: The appellants withheld material documents and facts relating to the vesting of the land and its transfer to the Delhi Development Authority, and the record indicated unauthorized construction and encroachment despite earlier proceedings. A litigant seeking injunction must approach the court with clean hands, and equitable relief is not available to a party who suppresses material facts or seeks protection for unlawful occupation.

Conclusion: Equitable relief was not available to the appellants, against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings that the suit was time-barred and that the appellants had neither proved lawful title or possession nor established entitlement to discretionary relief were upheld, so the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a declaratory suit governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation begins when the right to sue first accrues, and a party who fails to prove title or lawful possession and suppresses material facts is not entitled to injunction or other equitable relief.

---