Limitation Act: Suit for declaration and injunction not time-barred. Appeal allowed, remitted for prompt decision.

The Supreme Court held that the suit for declaration and injunction was not barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court determined that the right to sue accrued when the defendants refused to admit the claim shortly before the suit was filed in 1990, falling within the three-year limitation period. The High Court's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a decision on merits, with directions to dispose of the appeal promptly, preferably within six months. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether a suit for declaration and injunction was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Facts and Decision:
The plaintiffs and appellants were co-owners of land along with two other individuals who sold their share to the respondents. A pre-emption suit was filed and decreed in favor of the appellants. Subsequently, a compromise was reached in 1972, where the appellants were entitled to retain half of the land. The suit for declaration was filed in 1990, claiming ownership of their share. The respondents contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Act. The trial court, Additional District Judge, and High Court all held that the suit was time-barred. The High Court specifically stated that the cause of action arose in 1972, making the suit filed in 1990 beyond the limitation period.

Legal Analysis:
The Supreme Court analyzed the principles of when a right to sue accrues, citing precedents that state a right to sue arises when the right asserted is infringed or there is a clear threat of infringement. The Court noted that the cause of action for a declaratory suit must be within three years of the right accruing. In this case, the right to sue accrued when the defendants refused to admit the claim, just a week before the suit was filed in 1990. Therefore, the suit was within the limitation period as per Article 58 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation and set aside the High Court's judgment. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for a decision on merits. The High Court was directed to dispose of the second appeal promptly, preferably within six months. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

Judges:
The judgment was delivered by Tarun Chatterjee, J.

---