AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 363 ::2007 AIR SCW 6953 ::(2007) 2 CLR 861 (SC) ::(2008) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 278 ::(2008) 1 All RentCas 26 ::(2007) 4 CivilCourtC 721 ::2007 (14) SCC 183 ::(2007) 4 RecCivR 736 ::2007 (12) Scale 163 ::2007 (4) CurCC 237 ::2008 (1) Cal HN 50 ::2008 (1) CalLJ 110 ::2008 (1) All WC 339 ::(2008) 1 ICC 10 ::2008 (1) MadLW 96 ::2008 (1) MadLJ1278 ::2008 (2) RajLW 1077 ::2007 (7) Supreme 532 ::(2010) 87 AllIndCas 910 (CAL)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Madras)

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. B. Sinha, H. S. Bedi , JJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.7 R.11(d)— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.58, Art.65— Rejection of plaint - Application for - Maintainability - Suit for declaration of title, possession and consequential injunction based on sale deed - Suit filed on alleged trespass by defendant - Defendants disputing boundary description of property in sale deed and suit property - Plea that suit was barred by limitation raised - Dispute regarding boundaries of suit property - Is question of fact to be considered during trial - Limitation would not commence unless there has been clear and unequivocal threat to right claimed by plaintiff - Application for rejection of plaint on ground that suit was barred by limitation in view of Art. 58 - Not maintainable. Cri. (PD) No. 1143 of 2006, D/- 10-10-2006 (Mad), Reversed.(2005) 7 SCC 5101, (2004) 1 SCC 271, Relied on. (Para 7 9 13 18) (B) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.64, Art.65— Limitation Act (9 of 1908) , Art.142, Art.144— Suit for possession - Law of limitation relating to suit for possession has undergone an drastic change - In terms of Arts. 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it was obligatory on part of plaintiff to aver and plead his title over property and possessi....