Plaintiff's Right To Sue Accrues When They 'Actually' Perceive Threat To Their Title Over Property: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dismissing a revision plea concerning a title suit over a motor garage, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the defendant cannot contend that the plaintiffs' right to sue had accrued when their title was threatened, adding that period of limitation would begin when the plaintiffs actually perceive threat to their title. The court further affirmed that claim for declaration of title over property is governed by Article 58 Limitation Act which prescribes three year period for instituting a suit for declaration and the period of limitation begins when the right to sue first accrues. The court also added this has to be seen from the plaintiff's point of view and not from the defendants. A single judge bench of Justice Pranay Verma in its order observed, “It is not for the defendants to contend that title of plaintiffs was threatened earlier and that the right to sue had accrued then itself. It is on the basis of the perceived threat of plaintiffs that the period of limitation would begin. Though defendants have contended that in certain communications in the year 1989 and in the earlier suit itself, title of plaintiffs was denied but that would not be conclusive of the matter because plaintiffs did not feel any threat to their title at that time.”BackgroundA defendants had moved a revision petition before the high court against a trial court order which had dismissed their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaintiffs' title suit over the disputed property. The plaintiffs/non-applicants had instituted an action before the trial Court claiming that they are the owners of the disputed land (motor garage). They said that it was purchased by their ancestors in 1944 in an auction proceeding, adding that they had always been in possession of the land. In 1990 the land got diverted by plaintiffs' predecessors after which construction was made on it. Thereafter plaintiffs moved a plea Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking protection of their possession which was allowed by trial court in 2018.They claimed that defendants were threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs from the land. Thereafter in September 2018 one of the defendants' executed a sale deed with respect to part of the land in favour of two other defendants. Against this plaintiff moved a plea for declaration of their title to the property and a permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the land. The defendant parties thereafter filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint submitting that it is barred by time and that the claim has neither been properly valued nor adequate Court fees has been paid. This plea was rejected by the trial court.Before the high court the defendants' counsel said that the plaintiffs' are claiming title on the basis of auction sale as well as adverse possession which is not permissible, since they are mutually destructive pleas. The plaintiffs said that all the issues raised by the defendants are matter of evidence and cannot be considered at the present stage.FindingsOn the defendants' argument of alternate pleas taken by the plaintiffs the high court said, "Even if plaintiffs are taking two contradictory and even mutually destructive pleadings i.e. one of acquisition of title by virtue of adverse possession and the other acquisition of title on the basis of the auction sale, the suit cannot be said to be barred by any law for that reason. It is always open for the plaintiffs to take mutually contradictory and even destructive pleas in the plaint and only for that reason the plaint cannot be rejected.”It noted that the plaintiffs had claimed that cause of action arose upon execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and on March 18, 2019 when defendant No.1's suit was dismissed and when threat of dispossession was given.The court said, "Whether the right to sue or the cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs as contended by them or as is being contended by the defendants would be a matter of evidence to be adjudicated upon by the trial Court at the appropriate stage of proceedings. For the present, on the basis of pleadings as contained in the plaint and the reply to the counter claim, it cannot be said that the claim is admittedly barred by time".Thus, the court found that there is no case for interference and dismissed the revision thereby affirming the trial court's order. Case Title: RAJJAK AND OTHERS Versus BRAJBALAL BAI AND OTHERS, CIVIL REVISION No. 539 of 2023Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 262Click Here To Read/Download Order

Plaintiff's Right To Sue Accrues When They 'Actually' Perceive Threat To Their Title Over Property: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anukriti Mishra

Tags