Article 58: (Arts. 93, 119 & 129 of the Act of 1908):
The period of limitation for a suit to obtain any other declaration is three years and the time of limitation begins to run when the right to sue first accrues.
Image Source: riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Article 58 is a residuary Article of the declaratory suits and all suits for declaration other than those provided in Articles 56 and 57 will be governed by the Article 58.
In R.P. Agarwal v. U. Devi, (1982 All. LJ 260), it has been held that a suit for declaration that the respondent was not a legally married wife of the appellant attracts the Article 58.
In Bharat Singh v. Kanwar Singh, (AIR 1991 MP 368) it has been held that not only a suit for pure declaration but a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction attracts the Article 58 of the Limitation Act.
In Sheshmall N. Shah v. Sayed Adbul Rashid, (AIR 1991 Kant. 271), it has been held that when the suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession, then the proper Article is Art. 65 and not Article 58 of the Limitation Act because the main relief is the recovery of possession.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Article 58 of the Limitation Act has no applicability in the case when the plaintiff is in possession and he has no threat to such possession.
Limitation to file a suit for declaration governed by Article 58 is three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. In Commissioner of Taxes v. Golak Nath Kakai, (AIR 1979 Gau. 10), it has been held that an accrual of right to sue means the accrual of cause of action for the suit.
In Vasant Ramachandra Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra, [(1997) 11 SCC 305], it has been held that the suit for declaration that the compulsory retirement of the plaintiff was invalid was required to be filed within three years from the date when the order became effective.
In State of Punjab v, Rajinder Singh, (1999 SCC (L&S) 664), it has been held that a suit for declaration that the order stopping two increments with cumulative effect was illegal was to be filed within three years of such order.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Bharat Electronics Ltd. v. Ethiraj. (AIR 2000 Kant. 314), it has been held that a suit for declaration as regards the correct date of birth of the plaintiff filed more than three years after he came to learn about the wrong entry of his date of birth in the office records of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
In Dayawati v. Madan Lal Varma, (AIR 2003 All. 276), it has been held that a suit was filed for declaration that the sale deed is null and void limitation arises under Art. 58 within three years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The suit having been filed more than 13 years after the execution of the sale deed is barred by limitation.