Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Mr. Pradeep Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for BMRC referred to Section 31 (1) of the SRA and submitted that despite the Plaintiff disclosing in the plaint that she was aware of the mutation effected by the DDA, she had not sought cancellation of such mutation or cancellation of the sale deeds. Referring to the relevant provisions of the LA, Mr. Bakshi pointed out that a declaration would have to be sought within three years from the date of such knowledge and the suit was therefore barred by limitation. Relying on the decision in N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed LRs (2005) 5 SCC 548 he pointed that failure to seek such declaration would render the suit prima facie barred by law and also under Order II Rule 2 CPC since no such relief had been claimed till date. Mr. Aviral Tiwari, learned counsel for Defendants 1, 2, 18 and 29 respectively supported the submissions of Mr. Bakshi.

24. In the present case, the failure to seek declaration as to the invalidity of the sale registered deeds and their cancellation, the failure to seek a declaration of the invalidity of the Will dated 14th January 1996 of Mrs. Jasbir Kaur which formed the basis of the mutation, the failure to seek a declaration of the mutation to be illegal or for its cancellation are fatal to the suit. In the absence of such reliefs, the Plaintiff cannot possibly seek the relief of declaration of the shares of herself and Defendants 3 to 6 and 7 to 17 (collectively) to the suit properties.