In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for filing a declaratory suit begins from the first date the cause of action arises, not from the time the plaintiff obtains “full knowledge” of the matter.

The decision came in the case of Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. versus Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., where the Court allowed the appeal and restored the order of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, which had earlier rejected the plaintiff's suit as time-barred.

“It is a complete fallacy to make any distinction between ‘knowledge’ and ‘full knowledge’. Limitation has to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued, not any later date,” — Justice Pankaj Mithal, writing the judgment.

Read Also:- Justice BV Nagarathna Calls for Mandatory Mediation Before Filing Family Court Cases

Background of the Case

The dispute revolved around the Will dated 04.02.2014 and Codicil dated 20.09.2014 executed by the late Pramod Kesurdas Sanghavi. His son, Hitesh P. Sanghvi, filed a suit on 21.11.2017, seeking a declaration that the Will and Codicil were null and void, alleging fraud and fabrication. He also sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants (his three sisters and nephew) from transacting based on the documents.

According to the plaint, Hitesh only came to know about the existence of these documents in the first week of November 2014, after his father's death on 21.10.2014.

Despite this claim, the suit was filed three years and 20 days later, exceeding the three-year limitation period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

The City Civil Court, based on the plaintiff's own averments, found that the suit was ex-facie barred by limitation and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Read Also:- How the Supreme Court of India Can Effectively Reduce Case Pendency

The trial court held that the limitation began in the first week of November 2014, when the plaintiff admittedly gained knowledge of the Will and Codicil. Thus, the suit should have been filed by the first week of November 2017.

“The suit was not filed within the statutory limitation of three years from the first knowledge. No evidence was required to be adduced since the limitation was evident from the plaint itself.” — Supreme Court Observation

The Gujarat High Court, however, reversed the trial court’s decision on 08.02.2024, stating that the issue of limitation involved mixed questions of law and fact and that the plaintiff should be allowed to lead evidence. It also held that since there were multiple reliefs claimed, the plaint could not be rejected entirely.

Disagreeing with this reasoning, the Supreme Court emphasized that when the primary relief in the suit is barred by limitation, all ancillary reliefs dependent on it also fail.

“The primary relief in the plaint was the declaration of the Will and Codicil as null and void. All other prayers are consequential. If the suit is barred for the main relief, the rest cannot survive.”

Read Also:- Criminal Court Alone Can Give 'No Objection' for Passport If Case is Pending: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

• The Court noted that Article 58 applies when a declaration is sought other than cases covered under Articles 56 (instrument forged) and 57 (adoption).
• The limitation period starts from “when the right to sue first accrues”—in this case, from either the date of execution, registration, or at the latest, from the date of death or knowledge.
• The plaintiff’s own pleading stated knowledge of the documents in November 2014; hence, the suit filed in November 2017 was beyond limitation.

“The plaintiff did not plead any date of acquiring full knowledge. The argument of ‘full knowledge’ is a mere afterthought and was wrongly accepted by the High Court.”

The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 3 of the Limitation Act makes it mandatory for courts to dismiss suits filed beyond limitation, even if no such defence is raised.

“This is a matter of public policy to ensure finality and certainty in legal remedies. Courts are duty-bound to dismiss time-barred suits.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order, and restored the City Civil Court’s decision rejecting the suit.

Case Title: NIKHILA DIVYANG MEHTA & ANR. VERSUS HITESH P. SANGHVI & ORS.

bench: comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv.(argued by) Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Mr. Manan Daga, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Chawla, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju, Adv.(argued by) (R. No.1) Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya, AOR Mr. Dhanesh R. Patel, Adv. Mr. Sankalp Kumar, Adv.