Appellant's Appeal Dismissed Due to Limitation Bar

The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, dismissing the appellant's appeal as barred by the law of limitation. The appellant's failure to challenge the Will dated 10.9.1999 and filing the suit beyond the prescribed limitation period were key reasons for the decision. The court found no error of fact or law, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bar of Limitation
2. Validity of Will and Sale Deed
3. Cause of Action
4. Foundational Relief and Consequential Relief

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bar of Limitation:
The primary issue was whether the suit filed by the appellant was barred by limitation. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation, which was challenged in this appeal. The appellant argued that the right to sue first accrued on 17.3.2012 when an agreement to sell was executed by respondent No. 1 in favor of respondent No. 2, followed by a sale deed dated 11.4.2012. According to the appellant, under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for obtaining such declarations is three years from when the right to sue first accrues. The appellant contended that the trial court erred in holding that the suit was barred by limitation.

2. Validity of Will and Sale Deed:
The appellant sought declarations that the Will dated 4.3.1946 forbade the alienation of the suit property and that the sale deed dated 11.4.2012 executed by respondent No. 1 in favor of respondent No. 2 was null and void. The respondents argued that the appellant failed to challenge the Will dated 10.9.1999 executed by Laxmibai in favor of respondent No. 1, which was the basis for the sale deed. The trial court held that without challenging the Will of 1999, the suit did not disclose a complete cause of action for the reliefs sought.

3. Cause of Action:
The appellant contended that the cause of action arose on 26.7.2011 when he received documents from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, including the Will dated 4.3.1946, which indicated that the suit property could not be sold or alienated. The respondents argued that the suit filed in January 2015 was beyond the limitation period prescribed under Article 58 of the Limitation Act since the cause of action arose on 26.7.2011. The trial court found that the suit was indeed barred by limitation as it was filed after the three-year period.

4. Foundational Relief and Consequential Relief:
The trial court noted that the main relief sought was a declaration that the suit property could not be alienated as per the Will dated 4.3.1946. The other reliefs sought were consequential to this main relief. Since the main relief was barred by limitation, the consequential reliefs also could not be granted. Additionally, the appellant's failure to challenge the Will dated 10.9.1999 rendered the suit incomplete and not maintainable in law.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding no error of fact or law. The suit filed by the appellant was barred by the law of limitation, and the appeal was dismissed with parties bearing their own costs. The court emphasized that the appellant's failure to challenge the Will dated 10.9.1999 and the fact that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period were crucial factors in the decision.

---