Rajkumari Amrit Kaur vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur And Others on 1 June, 2020
(v). Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1903, the
period of limitation is to be computed for filing a suit from the
date when right to sue has first arisen and there is an
infringement or a clear/unequivocal threat to infringe that right.
Reliance can be placed upon State of Punjab vs. Bal Kishan,
2006(12) SCC 709; Rajinder vs. Harbans Singh, 2018 SCC
Online Bombay 549; Shri Jahangir vs. Smt. Maureen,
2017(6) MhLJ 270; Vimal Chand Jiain vs. Sushila Rani, 2016
SCC Online Delhi 2332; Amarjit Kaur vs. DDA, 2014 SCC
online Delhi 1097; Rajabhai Kasnabhai vs. Ismail Bhai, 2014
SCC online Gujarat 14547; Prem Narayan vs. Sudama Lal,
2014 SCC Online MP 2583; Mukesh Kapil vs. Parag P
Tripathi, 2013(15) R.C.R. (Civil) 812; MMTC Ltd. vs. Raj Rani
Gulati, 2013 SCC online Delhi 4906; Ram Gupta vs. ICICI
Ltd., 2012 SCC online Delhi 4334; Throw Ball Federation vs.
Union of India, 2012 SCC online Delhi 4167; Shashi
Bhushan vs. Sushil Kumar Pal, 2018 SCC online Calcutta
528 of 547
::: Downloaded on - 01-06-2020 21:03:45 :::
RSA Nos.2006, 1418 & 2176 of 2018 (O&M) 529
5627; Sharan Pal Kaur Anand vs. Parduman Singh
Chandok, 2016 SCC online Delhi 2434; Trilok Singh vs.
Vijay Kumar Sabharwal, 1996(8) SCC 367; TL Madhu
Krishna vs. Lalita Ramchandra Rao, 1997(2) SCC 611; MV
X-press Annapurana vs. Gitanjali Woolens Private Limited,
2011(8) R.C.R. (Civil) 2403; Shri Lal vs. Mangu Lal, 2013,
SCC online MP 7631; Atma Ram vs. Charanjit Singh, 2016
SCC online Punjab and Haryana 3774; Abdul Hussain vs.
Smt. Kalsum, 2000(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 200 (Punjab); Sunder Lal
vs. Kishan Lal, 2014(39) R.C.R. (Civil) 547; Salinder Kaur vs.
Kundan Singh, 2004(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 483; Vishwambhar vs.
Laxmi Narayan, 2001(6) SCC 163; Venkatagiriyappa vs.
Kamalamma, 2010 SCC online Karnataka 2687; Kirpal Singh
vs. Jitender Pal Kaur, 2017 SCC online Punjab and Haryana
302; Satnam Singh vs. Dev Kaur, 2015(8) R.C.R. (Civil) 365;
State of Gujarat vs. Kothari and Associates, 2016(14) SCC
761; Dhanna Singh vs. Singhar Singh, 2015(8) R.C.R. (Civil)
365; Mangli vs. Gaya Prashad, AIR 1947 Audh 235; M/s J.K.
Luxmi Cements Ltd. vs. M/s Namit Plastic (P) Ltd., 2009
SCC online Delhi 162; Nina Garments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Unitech
Ltd., 2012(132) DRJ 360; Girdhari Lal Houshi Lal vs.
Rannoo Raghoji Marathe, AIR 1944 Nagpur 37; Lala Uttam
529 of 547
::: Downloaded on - 01-06-2020 21:03:45 :::
RSA Nos.2006, 1418 & 2176 of 2018 (O&M) 530
Chand vs. Mosammat Thakur Devi, AIR 1922 Lahore, 39 and
Jago vs. Mahadev, AIR 1921 Nagpur 94. On the strength of
aforesaid precedents, it can be appreciated that the period for
limitation for filing suit for declaration would be three years from
the date, when the cause of action to sue first accrues. Plaintiff
has sought a decree for declaration and the suit ought to have
been filed within three years of right to sue first accrued. The
right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff on acquiring knowledge
regarding Will as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The crucial
date for ascertaining the limitation is the date on which the
application for amendment was allowed. Suit challenging the
Will filed beyond the period of limitation of three years is barred
by limitation. Once the cause of action starts running, it cannot
be stopped. Any excuse like unavailability of certified copy of the
document has no legal basis and the same in any case cannot
extend the period of limitation. Article 58 of the Limitation Act
would apply to the amended plaint in which the plaintiff sought
to add the relief of declaration of title to the already existing
prayer. Regarding amendment of plaint, doctrine of relation
back would not apply for the reason that the Court which
allowed the amendment expressly allowed it subject to plea of
limitation, indicating thereby that there are no special or
extraordinary circumstances in the present case to warrant the
530 of 547
::: Downloaded on - 01-06-2020 21:03:45 :::
RSA Nos.2006, 1418 & 2176 of 2018 (O&M) 531
doctrine of relation back applying so that a legal right that had
accrued to the defendant should be taken away.