Cause of action for declaration of title accrues upon final possession order, not interim attachment.

The respondent (plaintiff) purchased land measuring 1B-2K-5L under Dag No. 784 via a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1996 from the proforma defendant

After purchase, the appellant (defendant) initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., claiming a prior agreement for sale dated 14.07.1995 executed with his wife

The Executive Magistrate initially attached the land on 13.11.1996, and finally declared the appellant’s possession on 29.11.1999

The respondent filed a title suit on 24.01.2000 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession

The trial court and first appellate court ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to this second appeal

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, based on the pleaded cause of action

2. Whether the trial court committed illegality by not affording the parties an opportunity to prove or disprove the additional issue (non-joinder of parties) framed during the writing of the judgment

The court applied Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for a declaration, running from when the "right to sue first accrues"

It relied on the principle that property under attachment in Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings is custodia legis, and the criminal court’s findings are subject to the final determination of a competent civil court, as established in Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi

Further, it applied Order I Rule 9 of the CPC, which stipulates that no suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties

Detailed provisions of Section 21(2) CPC were cited regarding objections to territorial jurisdiction

Regarding Issue 1, the court reasoned that while the plaintiff mentioned 13.11.1996 (the date of attachment) in the cause of action paragraph, this did not extinguish any rights; rather, the right to sue "first accrued" on 29.11.1999 when the final order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. declared the appellant's possession

Thus, the suit filed on 24.01.2000 was within the three-year limit

On Issue 2, the court found that although an additional issue on non-joinder was framed at the judgment stage, no prejudice was caused because the appellant failed to lead evidence on how the mentioned parties (wife and others) were "necessary" rather than just "proper" parties

The court also noted that the appellant's wife merely held an agreement to sell, which does not confer title against a registered sale deed holder

Finally, the court dismissed the jurisdictional objection, noting that territorial objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity under Section 21 CPC and that administrative bifurcation of the Kamrup district did not nullify the court's inherent jurisdiction

It held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the cause of action effectively accrued upon the final order of the Magistrate

It further held that the trial court's handling of the additional issue did not constitute a fatal illegality under Order I Rule 9 CPC

The judgments and decrees of the lower courts were affirmed