Long-settled title decree bars partition and declaratory challenge where no sustainable cause of action or limitation saving exists.

A long-settled decree recognising another person as the real owner and the plaintiff's predecessor as benamidar defeated the plaint's partition claim, because the property could not be treated as part of the predecessor's estate while that decree remained in force. The plaint also failed to disclose a sustainable cause of action to set aside the decree, as the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, and illegality were unsupported, and the later statutory ban on benami transactions did not unsettle the decree. The declaratory claim was barred by limitation under Article 59, and exclusion of time was unavailable because the earlier proceeding was not pursued in good faith and with due diligence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action to seek partition of the property despite the decree dated 21 August 1969 declaring another person to be the real owner and the plaintiff's predecessor to be the benamidar; (ii) Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action to seek declaration that the decree dated 21 August 1969 was null and void and liable to be set aside; (iii) Whether the claim for declaration was within limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action to seek partition of the property despite the decree dated 21 August 1969 declaring another person to be the real owner and the plaintiff's predecessor to be the benamidar?

Analysis: The decree had stood acted upon for decades and the property had been mutated in accordance with it. Until that decree was set aside, the plaintiff could not assert that the property formed part of the estate of the plaintiff's predecessor for purposes of partition. A partition claim premised on a contrary title could not survive while the earlier decree remained in force.

Conclusion: The plaint did not disclose a cause of action for partition.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action to seek declaration that the decree dated 21 August 1969 was null and void and liable to be set aside?

Analysis: The pleadings and documents did not show that the allotment or the decree was unlawful, or that the plaintiff could assert a personal right to challenge a decree suffered by his predecessor after a long lapse of time. Benami transactions were then permitted, and the later statutory prohibition did not unsettle the decree. The challenge based on alleged fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, or Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was not supported by a sustainable cause of action in the plaint.

Conclusion: The plaint did not disclose a cause of action to seek setting aside of the decree.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim for declaration was within limitation?

Analysis: A suit to set aside a decree had to be brought within the period prescribed by Article 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Though the Court found the limitation question to be mixed one of law and fact, the plaintiff could not successfully invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because the earlier suit had been continued despite jurisdictional objections and without the requisite good faith and due diligence. The earlier proceedings were therefore of no assistance in saving limitation.

Conclusion: The claim for declaration was barred by time.

Final Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable as no cause of action was disclosed for partition or for setting aside the earlier decree, and the declaratory claim was also time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: A long-settled decree affecting title in immovable property cannot be challenged by a remote heir without a sustainable cause of action, and exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is unavailable where the earlier proceeding was not prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence.

---