https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172404 A suit challenging termination of a lease and seeking a declaration that the lease continued to subsist was time-barred because the right to sue accrued when the lease was terminated and possession was taken over. The lessee's later letter acknowledging that the plot had been taken over was treated as an unequivocal admission of dispossession. In the absence of a special limitation article, Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 required the declaration suit to be filed within three years from the first accrual of the right to sue. The contention that the termination could be ignored as void was rejected, since an allegedly invalid act remains effective unless set aside by a competent court. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:04:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172404 A suit challenging termination of a lease and seeking a declaration that the lease continued to subsist was time-barred because the right to sue accrued when the lease was terminated and possession was taken over. The lessee's later letter acknowledging that the plot had been taken over was treated as an unequivocal admission of dispossession. In the absence of a special limitation article, Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 required the declaration suit to be filed within three years from the first accrual of the right to sue. The contention that the termination could be ignored as void was rejected, since an allegedly invalid act remains effective unless set aside by a competent court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172404