Limitation bars declaratory amendment where title was denied earlier; relation back cannot defeat an accrued defence.

A declaratory amendment was held time-barred because the right to sue for declaration of title arose when the defendant expressly denied the plaintiff's title, and Article 58 of the Limitation Act prescribed three years from that accrual. The amendment sought after expiry of that period introduced a new declaratory relief on an already existing cause of action. The doctrine of relation back under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was held not to be universal and could be excluded where it would defeat an accrued limitation defence. The earlier order permitting amendment had left limitation open, and no special circumstances justified displacing the bar.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended prayer for declaration of title was barred by limitation, and whether the amendment could relate back to the date of the original plaint.

Analysis: The right to sue for declaration of title first accrued when the defendant's written statement expressly denied the plaintiff's title, and under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of three years begins when that right to sue first accrues. The amendment was moved after expiry of that period and introduced a new declaratory relief on a cause of action already in existence. The doctrine of relation back under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not of universal application and may be excluded where the amendment would defeat an accrued limitation defence. Since the earlier order permitting amendment had itself left the plea of limitation open, no special circumstances existed to displace the limitation bar.

Conclusion: The amended claim for declaration of title was time-barred and the doctrine of relation back did not apply.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment introducing a new relief will not relate back where the right to sue for that relief had already accrued and the amendment would take away an accrued defence of limitation.

---