Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Akbar Khan And Anr. vs Turaban on 13 August, 1908
Equivalent citations: 1 Ind Cas 557
Bench: J Stanley, Banerji


1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs’ claim is barred by limitation. The suit is one for a declaratory decree. The plaintiffs asked for a declaration that they were entitled to the property mentioned in the plaint. In 1895 the name of the defendant was entered in the revenue papers in respect of this property and the title of the plaintiffs was denied. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiffs’ cause of action for a declaratory suit accrued when this entry was made in 1895, and, as held by the Full Bench in Francis Legge v. Rambaran Singh 20 A. 35, six years limitation applies to the suit and must be computed from the year 1895. We think this view of the Court below is right. According to the Full Bench ruling referred to above, where the plaintiff is in possession and asks for a declaratory decree, the limitation applicable to the suit is that prescribed by Article 120 of schedule II to the Limitation Act, and should be computed from the date on which his cause of action arose. In the present case the plaintiffs’ cause of action is the entry of the defendant’s name in the revenue papers in respect of the property in suit in 1895. As the suit was brought after the expiry of six years from that year, it is time-barred. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that a fresh cause of action accrued to them in 1903 when the defendant objected to the correction of the khewat. That, in our opinion, was not a fresh cause of action. The refusal to have the entry corrected was a continuation of the original cause of action, namely, the entry of the defendant’s name in the revenue papers in 1895. In the case of Ilahi Bakhsh v. Harnam Singh (1898) A.W.N. 215 and Robert Skinner v. Shanker Lal (1909) 1 1. C. 556 decided by a Bench of this Court on the 27th of May 1908, there was a fresh invasion of the plaintiffs’ right, and that was held to have given him a fresh cause of action. As in the present case there was no fresh invasion of the right of the plaintiffs, the ruling’s referred to are inapplicable. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with cost.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

105 queries in 0.187 seconds.