https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302460 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. en-us Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 May 2022 09:35:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302460 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302460