Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that if in a suit for declaration of title, a further relief of recovery of possession is also sought, then the limitation period for filing the suit would be governed by the limitation period prescribed for filing a suit for recovery of possession (i.e., 12 years as per Article 65 of Limitation Act) and not the one prescribed for seeking declaration of title (i.e., 3 years as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act) . 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board.  

What was the Background of N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board? 

• The Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (plaintiff-respondent) filed a suit seeking a declaration of title over a property measuring approximately 3750 square feet in Survey No. 16/1 in Kotlambakkam Panchayat, District Cuddalore, along with recovery of its possession. 
• The claim was based on a registered gift deed dated March 5, 1983, allegedly executed by the defendant-appellant and said to have been accepted by the plaintiff-respondent. 
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit on August 23, 1994, holding that the gift deed was invalid, as it had not been accepted or acted upon. 
• The plaintiff-respondent then appealed to the District Judge, who, on August 5, 1997, reversed the Trial Court’s decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff-respondent. 
• In a subsequent appeal, the High Court upheld this decision on January 11, 2011, finding that the gift was valid, had been acted upon and accepted, and could not be revoked due to the absence of any revocation clause. 
• After a delay of 207 days, the defendant-appellant filed a Special Leave Petition, which was accepted, and the civil appeal was set for consideration. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court reasoned that “in a suit for declaration of title along with recovery of possession of an immovable property, a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists. When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit. The principle is that the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsist.” 
• “Once it is held that the gift deed was validly executed resulting in the absolute transfer of title in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, the same is not liable to be revoked, and as such the revocation deed is meaningless especially for the purposes of calculating the period of limitation for instituting the suit.” 
• “Even otherwise, though the limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title is three years as per Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act but for recovery of possession based upon title, the limitation is 12 years from the date the possession of the defendant becomes adverse in terms of Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Therefore, suit for the relief of possession was not actually barred and as such the court of first instance could not have dismissed the entire suit as barred by time.” 

What are the Legal Provisions with regard to Limitation Period of Suit for Declaration? 

• Article 58 of the Limitation Act states that, to obtain any other declaration the period of limitation will be three years. 
• Article 65 of the Limitation Act states that for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title will be Twelve years. 
• Section 34 of the Specific relief Act states that any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief  

Declaratory Decrees under Specific Relief Act, 1963 

About 

• The declaratory relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is in the nature of equitable relief for granting of an already existing right which has been denied by the other party.  
• It does not seek anything to be paid or performed additionally by the defendant. In simpler terms, this section does not warrant every declaration but that the plaintiff is entitled to such legal character or right and only under special circumstances. 

Object of Declaratory Decrees 

• The objects of the declaratory decrees are:  
  • To protect the legal right and legal character of the owner from the adverse attack  
  • To enjoy the legal character and legal right peacefully by owner  
  • To protect the law and peace where the adverse possession is noticed 

Case Laws 

• Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperation Housing Society Limited, (2014) 
  • The Supreme Court held that “In a suit for declaration, heavy burden rests upon the plaintiff to prove the title, particularly when it is in respect of an item of immovable property.  
• Maran Mar Basselios tholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira, (1959) 
  • The Supreme Court held that, in a suit for declaration if the plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so on the strength of their own title.