The “fraud” envisaged in section 18 only relates to concealing, not creating, the right to sue, and thus affects only the limitation period, and has nothing to do with the cause of action and the relief prayed.

 Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (“Limitation Act”) is the most pivotal provision providing relief in computing the limitation period, applicable to a person who claims to be deprived of the knowledge of his right to sue based on the fraud of the other party.

In essence, this provision postpones the commencement of the limitation period in cases where a person is by means of fraud kept from the knowledge of his right to institute a suit. In such circumstances, the period of limitation commences from the date when the fraud first became known to the “person injuriously affected”. Such injuriously affected person can, therefore, institute a suit within the limitation period specified for such suit in the First Schedule (“Schedule”) to the Limitation Act, but computing it from the date when he first had knowledge of the fraud, whereby he was kept from knowledge of his right to institute the suit. Thus, section 18 of Limitation Act is an umbrella provision that makes the limitation period mentioned in the Articles of the Schedule, begin to run from the time different from that specified therein.

It is but fundamental to appreciate that the “fraud” stated in section 18 of the Limitation Act must not be confused with the fraud that constitutes cause of action, and creates a right to institute the suit for the relief prayed therein. The “fraud” envisaged in section 18 only relates to concealing, not creating, the right to sue, and thus affects only the limitation period, and has nothing to do with the cause of action and the relief prayed.

It would, thus, be safe to hold that, when despite obtaining knowledge of such fraud and his right to sue, as mentioned in section 18, the injuriously affected person does not institute the suit within the prescribed limitation period, no fresh period of limitation can be available to his legal heir(s) or any other person who derives his right to sue from or through him (the injuriously affected person); for once the limitation period begins to run, it does not stop as per section 9 of the Limitation Act.

Further, the definition of the term “plaintiff”, as given in section 2(of the Limitation Act also has the effect of barring the fresh start of the limitation period for the legal heir(s) or any other person, who derives his right to sue from or through such injuriously affected person, as it provides that “plaintiff” includes any person from or through whom a plaintiff derives his right to sue.

Therefore, it is the date of knowledge of the “person injuriously affected” of the fraud mentioned in section 18, and of his right to sue that is relevant for computing the limitation period, not of his legal heir(s), unless he asserts and prove that his predecessor (the person injuriously affected) never came to know of the fraud, whereby his right to institute the suit was concealed, in his lifetime; in the latter eventuality, it is, of course, the knowledge of the present plaintiff (his successor) that would be the starting point for the limitation to run.

Needless to mention that, a plaintiff who wants to avail the benefit of section 18 of the Limitation Act must assert the commission of such fraud by the defendant, in the plaint, and should also give the particulars thereof, and the date of knowledge, as required under Rule 4 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and then prove the same through positive evidence.

A suit for declaration of any right, as to any property is filed under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act

It becomes evident by reading the above provisions that the right to sue accrues to a person against the other for declaration of his right, as to any property, when the latter denies or is interested to deny his such right. It thus postulates two actions that cause the accrual of right to sue, to an aggrieved person:

(i) actual denial of his right or

(ii) apprehended or threatened denial of his right.

Now, what “actions” can be termed as an “actual denial of right”, and what a mere “apprehended or threatened denial of right”, in the context of adverse entries recorded in the revenue record. It is important to note that a person may ignore an “apprehended or threatened denial” of his right taking it not too serious to dispel that by seeking a declaration of his right through instituting a suit, and may exercise his option to institute the suit, when he feels it necessary to do so, to protect his right. For this reason, every “apprehended or threatened denial” of right gives a fresh cause of action and right to sue to the person aggrieved of such apprehension or threat. However, this option to delay the filing of the suit is not available to him in case of “actual denial” of his right; where if he does not challenge the action of actual denial of his right, despite having knowledge thereof, by seeking declaration of his right within the limitation period provided in the Limitation Act, then his right to do so becomes barred by law of limitation.

Admittedly, entries in the revenue record do not create or extinguish proprietary rights. Such an entry may at most be termed as a mere “apprehended or threatened denial” of right, and not an “actual denial” of right. Accordingly, every new adverse entry in the revenue record relating to proprietary rights of a person in possession (actual or constructive) of the land regarding which the wrong entry is made, gives to such person, a fresh cause of action to institute the suit for declaration.

The situation is, however, different in a case where the beneficiary of an entry in the revenue record also takes over the possession of the land on the basis of sale or gift transaction, as the case may be, recorded in that entry. His action of taking over possession of the land in pursuance of the purported sale or gift is certainly an “actual denial” of the proprietary rights of the purported seller or donor. Therefore, in such a case, if the purported seller or donor does not challenge that action of “actual denial” of his right, within the prescribed limitation period, despite having knowledge thereof, then his right to do so becomes barred by law of limitation.

Civil Appeal No. 139-P of 2013
Mst. Rabia Gula, etc. Vs Muhammad Janan, etc.