Limitation for title claims runs from a clear threat to rights, not later settlement disclosure.

In a suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs, limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act runs from the date the asserted right is openly and unequivocally threatened, not from later disclosure of a settlement agreement. The Court treated the plaintiff's cause of action as having arisen when its claimed beneficial ownership was challenged through proceedings and impleadment efforts in 2000 and 2001. Section 17 did not postpone limitation because the relevant threat was already known or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and a stranger to the settlement could not seek rescission or cancellation of that instrument. Prayers (q) to (u) were therefore barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether prayers (q) to (u) in the suit were barred by limitation, and whether the plaintiff could invoke limitation based on later disclosure of the settlement agreement instead of the earlier challenge to its rights.

Analysis: The preliminary issue was framed under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and required determination of the starting point of limitation for the plaintiff's claim to beneficial ownership and consequential reliefs. The Court held that the plaintiff's right to sue arose when its asserted title was openly and unequivocally threatened by the Ruias' proceedings and impleadment efforts in 2000 and 2001, not when the 2002 settlement agreement was later disclosed. The suit was one for declaration of title and consequential reliefs, and a stranger to the settlement could not seek rescission or cancellation of that instrument as if it were a party to it. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied, not Article 59 or Article 113, and Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not postpone limitation because the material threat to the plaintiff's rights was already known or knowable with reasonable diligence. The Court also found that subsequent disclosure of the settlement did not create a fresh or independent cause of action.

Conclusion: Prayers (q) to (u) were held to be barred by limitation and the preliminary issue was answered against the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for declaration of title, limitation runs from the date of a clear and unequivocal threat to the plaintiff's asserted right, and a stranger to a settlement cannot postpone limitation by waiting for disclosure of that settlement before seeking to challenge it.

---