Rajeev Gupta vs Prashant Garg 2025 INSC 552 - Limitation Act - TP Act - Suit For Declaration
Limitation Act 1961 - Article 58- If cause of action to sue means accrual of the right for an actionable claim, it is the moment from which such right first accrues that the clock of limitation would start ticking -Even though cause of action for instituting a suit might arise on varied occasions and/or at different times, what is material and assumes relevance for computing the period of limitation under Article 58 is the date when the right to sue first accrues to the aggrieved suitor. Though dominus litus, a suitor cannot pick and choose a time for approaching court. The period of limitation in terms of Article 58 being 3 (three) years, the prescribed period has to be counted from that date of the right to sue first accruing and the suit, if not instituted within 3 (three) years therefrom, would become barred by time. (Para 30)
Limitation Act 1961 - Article 59- Any suit seeking cancellation of a particular instrument as void or voidable would be governed by Article 59 and, therefore, has to be instituted within 3 (three) years from date the suitor could be said to have first derived knowledge of the fact of such an instrument (which, according to him, is void or voidable) coming into existence. The word “first” in Article 59 would ordinarily have the same connotation as in Article 58. (Para 31)
Transfer of Property Act 1881- Section 52- Section 52 of the ToP Act does not ipso facto render a sale transaction as inoperative, it merely subjects it to the outcome of the pending proceedings. (Para 41) - Referred to G.T. Girish v. Y. Subba Raju (2022) 12 SCC 321 - The effect of the doctrine of lis pendens, which Section 52 of the ToP Act embodies, is not to annul all voluntary transfers effected by a party to the suit but only to render it subservient to the rights of the parties thereto under the decree or order that the court may make in the suit. The transfer, subject to the result of the suit, could remain valid. (Para 42)
Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 68 - The requirement of proof of a will in accordance with Section 68 is not done away with, even if the will is not disputed by the opposite party. In Ramesh Verma v. Lajesh Saxena (2017) 1 SCC 257, (Para 48)
Specific Relief Act 1963- Section 34- Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction; however, where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction- In a suit filed for possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over the land. - Referred to Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 and Sopanrao v. Syed Mehmood (2019) 7 SCC 76 (Para 62-63)
Legal maxim- Nemo dat quod non habet - no one can transfer a better title than what he himself possesses. (Para 40)
