In Brief
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of their interest in property based on a 1995 agreement and invoked Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court refused to reject their suit, but the High Court allowed an application to dismiss it as barred by limitation and as maintainable against the owner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by reading only selected portions of the plaint instead of the whole. The entire averments showed the cause of action arose when possession was threatened in August 2010, not from the 2004 agreement. The Court restored the trial court's order and remitted the case for trial on merits."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.