Case Note & Summary
The Plaintiffs, Beach Towers Condominium and its President, filed a suit in 2012 seeking declarations that they have a right of way and easement over adjoining plots owned by Defendant No. 1 (Bombay Dyeing) and Defendant No. 2 (Nowrosjee Wadia & Sons). The suit also sought an injunction against the defendants from interfering with such rights. The dispute arose from a 1982 incident when the defendants blocked access to a road and swimming pool area, which the plaintiffs claimed they had used since the 1970s. The defendants raised a preliminary issue of limitation, arguing that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period. The court framed the issue and, after hearing arguments, held that the suit was barred by limitation. The court found that the cause of action accrued in 1982 when the defendants denied access, and the plaintiffs' claims for declaration and easement were governed by Articles 25, 65, and 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which require filing within 12 years for title and 3 years for other reliefs. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument of a continuing cause of action, noting that the denial was a single act and subsequent assertions did not revive the limitation period. The suit was dismissed as time-barred.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Suit for Declaration - Articles 25, 65, 113 - Suit for declaration of right of way and easement over adjoining plots filed after 30 years from alleged denial - Held that the suit is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 1982 when the defendants denied access, and no continuing breach was established (Paras 1-10, 25-30). B) Easement - Right of Way - Acquisition by Prescription - Section 15 of Easement Act - Claim for easement by prescription requires 20 years of uninterrupted use - Plaintiffs failed to prove such use after 1982 - Held that the right, if any, was extinguished by denial (Paras 15-20). C) Limitation Act - Continuing Cause of Action - Article 113 - Mere repeated assertions of right do not create a fresh cause of action - The denial in 1982 was a single, definitive act - Held that the suit is not saved by the concept of continuing wrong (Paras 22-28).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by the Plaintiffs seeking declarations and injunctions regarding rights over adjoining plots is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The preliminary issue is answered in the affirmative; the suit is barred by limitation and is dismissed with costs.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Articles 25
- 65
- 113
- Easement
- Right of Way
- Declaration of Title
- Adverse Possession
- Continuing Cause of Action
- Jurisdictional Bar
