M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD.)versusSURESH PRODUCTIONS & ORS.

                          [2020] 3 S.C.R. 975                               975


                 M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD.                                    A
           (NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT
                   ENTERPRISES LTD.)
                            v.
                 SURESH PRODUCTIONS & ORS.
                                                                            B
                    (Civil Appeal No.1716 of 2020)
                        FEBRUARY 25, 2020
        [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
       Cause of Action: Right to sue – Accrual of, when – On facts,
plaintiffs assigned telecasting right of 16 schedule films by               C
assignment deeds dated 23.12.1994 for a period of 9 years in favour
of defendant Nos.5 to 8 as requested by defendant No.4 – Issuance
of public notice in Film Magazine by plaintiff regarding the 16 films
– Claim by defendant N o.1 that they acquired satellite broadcasting
rights of the 16 Hindi films from defendant No.2, by assignment             D
deed dated 21.3.1997 for a period of 99 years – Suit by plaintiffs
in 2003, for declaration that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have no manner
of right, title and interest in the Copyright in respect of the scheduled
films, and to pass a decree of perpetual injunction against defendant
Nos.1 to 4 – Trial court holding that the cause of action arose in the
year 1995 itself when the plaintiff got knowledge of claim of the           E
first defendant over the given films and plaintiffs chosen to file the
suit in the year 2003 in respect of agreement dated 10.10.1994 –
Dismissal of suit as barred by limitation – Cause of action to a
plaintiff to file a suit accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal
threat to infringe a right of the plaintiff – On facts, plaintiff having    F
already assigned their right for a period of 9 years by assignment
deed dated 23.12.1994, there was no cause of action during the
said period of 9 years – When the plaintiffs had already parted
with their right of telecasting films on 23.12.1994 there could not
have been any threat to their right in the year 1995 – Thus, the suit
filed by the plaintiffs is within limitation – Order passed by the High     G
Court upheld.




                                                                            H
                                  975
976            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A           Dismissing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 When the plaintiffs assigned their rights to
      defendant Nos.5 to 8 on the request of defendant No.4 for a period
      of 9 years, plaintiffs having parted with their satellite rights could
      not have claimed any right for telecasting during the said period
B     of 9 years. Inter se dispute between defendant Nos.4 and 3 which
      begun with filing suit in Mumbai there could not have been any
      cause of action for the plaintiffs to file a suit claiming telecasting
      rights for themselves. Furthermore, it was the case of the
      defendant No.3 itself that dispute between defendant No.3 and 4
      subsided when the suit filed by defendant No.3 was returned in
C     the year 1995 itself. It was submitted by the counsel for the
      appellants that even though DS filed a police complaint in the
      year 1995 itself with regard to the alleged assignment dated
      10.10.1994 but no further proceedings were taken by DS
      thereafter. The trial court in its judgment has also returned a
D     finding that the assignment dated 10.10.1994 by DS in favour of
      defendant No.4 and assignment dated 17.10.1994 by defendant
      No.4 to 3 has not been proved. [Para 14][983-C-F]
             1.2 The trial court by its judgment dismissed the plaintiffs’
      suit having accepted the case of the plaintiffs regarding
E     assignment of telecasting rights of said schedule films i.e.
      assignment of 23.12.1994 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 at
      the request of defendant No.4 for 9 years. The plaintiffs’ claim
      for the right of schedule films arose only after 22.12.2003. They
      having parted with their right, there was no real threat to their
      right by any inter-se dispute between defendant Nos.4 and 3 or
F     other defendants. It was on 22.12.2003 that plaintiffs again became
      entitled to assign telecasting rights of the aforesaid 16 films after
      the expiry of the period of 9 years of assigning the telecasting
      right of 16 films to defendant Nos.5 to 8 on the request of the
      defendant No.4 on valuable consideration. [Para 15][984-B-D]
G           1.3 The trial court had observed that cause of occasion arose
      in the year 1995 itself when the plaintiff got knowledge of claim
      of the first defendant over the given films and plaintiffs have
      chosen to file the suit in the year 2003 in respect of agreement

H
 M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT                    977
           ENTERPRISES LTD.) v. SURESH PRODUCTIONS


dated 10.10.1994. The trial court further held that plaintiffs sat          A
over their rights for eight long years, hence, suit is barred by
time. The suit which was filed in the year 1995 by defendant No.3
against defendant No.4 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai where
assignments dated 10.10.1994 and 17.10.1994 were referred to
got dismissed in the year 1995 itself as Small Causes Court had
                                                                            B
no jurisdiction to consider the claim of defendant No.3. [Para
16][984-E-F]
      1.4 Cause of action to a plaintiff to file a suit accrues when
there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe a right. The
plaintiff having already assigned their right for a period of 9 years
by assignment deed dated 23.12.1994, there was no cause of action           C
during the aforesaid period of 9 years. When the plaintiffs had
already parted with their right of telecasting films on 23.12.1994
there could not have been any threat to their right in the year
1995. Thus, in view of the pleadings on the record and facts of
the present case, suit filed by the plaintiffs is well within limitation,   D
the finding of the High Court that the suit is within limitation is
based on correct appreciation of facts and pleadings. [Paras 17,
18][985-G-H; 986-G]
      Daya Singh and another v. Gurdev Singh (Dead) by
      Lrs. And others (2010) 2 SCC 194 : [2010] 1 SCR 194                   E
      – referred to.
                        Case Law Reference
[2010] 1 SCR 194                  referred to        Para 17
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1716                   F
of 2020.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 11.03.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad in City Civil Court Appeal No. 120 of 2015.
      Sridhar Potaraju, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Ms. Petal Chandok,
Ms. Rupali Gupta, Ms. Shweta Parihar, Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Ms. G.            G
Ushasri, Vishnu Tulasi Menon (for M/S. Trust Legal), Advs. for the
Appellant.
      T. Raghuram, Mullapudi Rambabu, N. Eswara Rao, Ms. Prity
Kumari, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik (for M/S. M. Rambabu And Co.),
Advs. for the Respondents.                                                  H
978             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
             1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment
      of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
      and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 11.03.2016 allowing the plaintiffs’
B     appeal.
             2. Brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal are:
              The parties shall be referred to as described in the suit. The
      plaintiffs have been carrying on business of producing, distributing and
C     exhibiting cinematographic films. On a request of 4th defendant, M/s.
      N.S. Films, the plaintiffs on 23.12.1994 assigned to four persons
      nominated by 4th defendant satellite broadcasting rights of 16 Hindi films
      for a period of 9 years. The assignments were made by six assignment
      deeds all dated 23.12.1994. In the year 1995, plaintiffs came to know
      about the pendency of the Small Causes Suit filed in Bombay, Small
D     Causes Suit No.281 of 1995 by 3rd defendant, M/s. Asia Vision against
      the 4th defendant seeking for relief of declaration and injunction in respect
      of above 16 films,on the basis of certain documents purporting to be a
      deed of assignment dated 07.10.1994 and declaration dated 15.10.1994
      allegedly assigned by D. Suresh Babu assigning satellite and Doordarshan
E     rights in favour of 4th defendant. The suit at Bombay was filed on the
      basis of notarised of the said forged documents. Shri D. Ramesh Babu,
      Director of first plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Police Station, Jubilee
      Hills, Hyderabad complaining about the said forgery. Defendant No.3
      had also lodged complaint against 4th defendant and plaintiffs at Mumbai.
      Several criminal proceedings were filed by the plaintiffs as well as by
F     defendant Nos.3 to 8. However, suit filed by the other parties came to
      be dismissed for default and controversy was subsided.
             3. The plaintiffs issued a public notice in the Film Information
      Magazine on 27.09.2003 with respect to the above said 16 Hindi films. A
      legal notice from first defendant on 14.10.2003 in reply to the notice of
G     the plaintiffs was received where defendant No.1 claimed that they have
      acquired satellite broadcasting, Pay TV and Cable TV rights of all above
      16 Hindi films from defendant No.2, M/s. B.N.U. & Co. vide deed of
      assignment dated 21.03.1997 for a period of 99 years and that, M/s.
      B.N.U. & Co. had in turn acquired the said rights from M/s. Asia Vision,
      defendant No.3, vide agreement dated 16.03.1997. The first defendant
H
 M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT                        979
 ENTERPRISES LTD.) v. SURESH PRODUCTIONS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]


called upon the plaintiffs to withdraw the said public notice. The plaintiffs   A
sent reply dated 17.10.2003 refuting the facts in the notice of the first
defendant. The plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.392 of 2003 on 11.11.2003
before the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, for declaration
that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have no manner of right, title and interest in
the Copyright in respect of the scheduled films, to pass a decree of
                                                                                B
perpetual injunction against defendant Nos. 1 to 4.
        4. First defendant filed written statement. It was pleaded that
D. Suresh Babu representing the plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 4 assigned T.V.
Doordarshan and world satellite rights in the said 16 films in favour of
4 th defendant on 10.10.1994 for a valuable consideration of
Rs.55,00,000/-. The 6 assignment deeds dated 23.12.1994 was alleged             C
to be manufactured for the purpose of claiming rights in the suit scheduled
films. Although, the above plaintiffs have already been divested of their
rights by assignment dated 10.10.1994 with 4th defendant. Under deed
of assignment dated 17.10.1994, the 4th defendant had assigned the rights
to third defendant and third defendant in turn assigned the rights to second    D
defendant by deed of assignment dated 16.03.1997. First defendant
claims deed of assignment from second defendant by assignment deed
dated 21.03.1997. First defendant pleaded that from 21.03.1997 it has
been exercising the satellite broadcasting rights acquired under the deed
of assignment and the suit scheduled films have been telecasted as many
as 223 times on various occasions since August 1997 till date. The              E
allegations made in the plaint were denied. Defendant No.2 adopted the
written statement filed by defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 also filed a
written statement which was in the line of the written statement filed by
defendant No.1. Reference of Suit No.221 to 225 of 1995 filed by the
defendant Nos.4 to 8 was also made which were dismissed on                      F
31.08.2000,the defendant No.3 claimed to be bona fide purchasers of
suit scheduled 16 films for a valuable consideration, with regard to Small
Causes Suit Nos. 281 of 1995 filed by defendant No.3 against defendant
No.4 through Mrs. Nalini Shankerit was stated that it was not necessary
to pursue as Small Causes Court, Mumbai was not having jurisdiction. It
was pleaded that the plaintiffs were very well aware of as back as 1994         G
rights acquired from the plaintiffs on 10.10.1994.
      5. The trial court framed the following 10 issues:
      1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
                                                                                H
980             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A            2) Whether the suit is barred by res judicata in view of decree
                in O.S.Nos.18 to 21 of 1996?
             3) Whether the plaintiffs acquiesced the infringement of copy
                right of the scheduled films?
             4) Whether the claim of Defendant No.1 over the plaint schedule
B               films is true?
             5) Whether the suit transactions, as alleged by the plaintiffs are
                true, valid and binding on the defendants?
             6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed
C               for?
             7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the perpetual injunction
                as prayed for?
             8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the delivery of tapes
                etc., as prayed for?
D
             9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the damages, as prayed
                for?
             10) To what relief?”
             6. On Issue No.1 trial court held that cause of action for filing the
E     suit arose in the year 1995 itself when the plaintiff got knowledge of the
      claims of the first defendant over the given films and they have chosen
      to give report to the police in respect of the agreement dated 10.10.1994.
      Trial Court held that they slept over their rights for eight long years,
      hence, the suit claim is hopelessly barred by limitation.

F             7. On Issue No.2, trial court held that suit is not barred by principle
      of res judicata. Issue Nos.4 to 9 were answered in favour of the plaintiffs,
      it was held that the plaintiffs’ claim over the suit scheduled films is proved.
      The agreement dated 23.12.1994 was held to be proved whereas
      defendants have failed to prove the assignment dated 10.10.1994. The
      transactions alleged to have been entered into between 4th defendant
G     and 3rddefendant in respect of 16 films was held not to be proved. Issue
      No.3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Trial court, however, in
      view of finding on Issue No.1 that suit is barred by limitation dismissed
      the suit by its judgment dated 09.03.2011.
            8. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court filed
H     appeal before the Hight Court which appeal has been allowed by the
 M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT                       981
 ENTERPRISES LTD.) v. SURESH PRODUCTIONS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]


High Court by impugned judgment dated 11.03.2016. The High Court               A
noticed in the judgment that only point for determination in the appeal is:
“Whether the finding of the trial court that suit was barred by limitation
is factually and legally correct?” The High Court after considering the
submissions of the learned counsel of the parties held that suit filed by
the plaintiffs was not barred by limitation.
                                                                               B
      9. The High Court held that in the year 1995 defendant Nos.1 and
2 were not in the scene and so the question of plaintiffs taking action
against them does not arise. It held that to the plaintiffs cause of action
arose for the first time when defendant No.1 issued notice dated
14.10.2003 and the suit having filed immediately thereafter was well
within time. The High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in         C
favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment of
the High Court has come up in this appeal.
        10. Shri Sridhar Potaraju, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the plaintiffs had knowledge of violation of their rights qua scheduled
16 films in the year 1995. It is submitted that defendant No.3 has filed       D
S.C. Suit No.281 of 1995 in Mumbai for declaration and injunction against
defendant No.4 where reference of agreement dated 10.10.1994 and
17.10.1994 was made. PW.1, D. Suresh Babu who appeared as witness
in the present suit admitted having knowledge of the suit filed in the
Bombay Court. It is further submitted that defendant Nos.4 to 8 had            E
filed O.s.No.221 to 225 of 1995 for declaration and injunction against
plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 before the City Civil Court,
Hyderabad which suit was subsequently dismissed. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4
has also filed O.S.No.16 of 1996 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad against defendant Nos.3,4 and 8 qua 3 films. The
above facts clearly indicate that they had full knowledge of infringement      F
of their right and ought to have filed suit within the period of limitation.
He submits that Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act provides that suit
can be filed within three years from the date when the cause of action
first arose. He further contends that plaintiff being aware of the claim of
the defendants as reflected in various litigations and having not taken        G
any action acquiesced to the claim of the defendants,hence, the suit is
liable to be dismissed on the principle of acquiescence.
      11. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri T. Raghuram refuting
the submissions of the appellants contends that the High Court after
considering the materials on record has rightly come to the conclusion         H
982             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A     that the suit was not barred by time. It is submitted that the alleged
      assignments dated 10.10.1994 and 17.10.1994 which are foundation of
      the case of the defendants having not been proved in the suit and the
      trial court itself has found that the said assignments have not been proved,
      there was no cause of action to the plaintiff to file suit in the year 1995.
      It is submitted that assignment dated 23.12.1994 by the plaintiff in favour
B
      of defendant No.4 has been proved by which plaintiff has assigned
      broadcasting rights to defendant No.5 to 9 for a period of 9 years. The
      plaintiff was not concerned about the telecasting of films during the said
      period.It is submitted that cause of action arose to the plaintiff when
      they published notice in the Film Information Magazine with regard to
C     prosecute their right to which reply was given on 27.09.2003. It is
      submitted that cause of action arose when reply dated 14.10.2003 was
      received from defendant No.1 which claimed rights to the aforesaid 16
      films. It is submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs was well within time
      and the High Court has rightly come to the said conclusion.
D            12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
      the records.
            13. The plaintiff’s case in the plaint was that plaintiffs have assigned
      telecasting right of 16 schedule films by 6 assignment deeds dated
      23.12.1994 for a period of 9 years in favour of defendant No.5 to 8 as
E     requested by defendant No.4. The trial court in its judgment while
      considering the Issue Nos.4 to 9 has specifically considered the
      assignment deed dated 23.12.1994. While answering Issue Nos.4 to 9
      especially assignment deed dated 23.12.1994 by the plaintiff in favour of
      defendant No.5 to 8 at the instance of defendant No.4, the trial court
      recorded the following finding:
F
             “It is an undisputed fact that originally copyright holders in respect
             of suit schedule films have been the plaintiffs firms only. D.W.1
             also accepted the same. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that
             Sr.D. Rama Naidu, representing plaintiffs firm has entered into
             assigned agreement with fourth defendant and assigned satellite
G            and broadcasting rights over the suit schedule films for a period
             of nine years from 23.12.1994 to the nominees of fourth defendant
             i.e. Defendant No.5 to 8 for valuable consideration received by
             the plaintiffs from fourth defendant and acknowledging said
             assignment and receipt of the consideration vide letter dated
H            23.12.1994. Exs. A7 to A12 are assignment agreements pertaining
 M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT                      983
 ENTERPRISES LTD.) v. SURESH PRODUCTIONS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]


      to Defendant Nos.5 to 8. Defendant Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 have not            A
      chosen to contest the suit by filing written statement, though they
      appeared before the Court through their respective advocates.
      They have not even cross-examined the witnesses examined for
      plaintiff and first defendant and they have not adduced any evidence
      either. Thus, it is to be taken that, they are not actually disputing
                                                                              B
      with the claims of the plaintiffs. By examining P.W.1 before the
      court and by producing Exs.A7 to A12, plaintiffs could establish
      their claims in respect of assignment agreement entered into by
      plaintiffs with fourth defendant and their assignment rights over
      the suit schedule films and also expiry of the period of said
      assignment prior to the date of filing of this suit.”                   C
       14. When the plaintiffs assigned their rights to defendant Nos.5 to
8 on the request of defendant No.4 for a period of 9 years, plaintiffs
having parted with their satellite rights could not have claimed any right
for telecasting during the aforesaid period of 9 years. Inter se dispute
between defendant Nos.4 and 3 which begun with filing suit in Mumbai          D
could not have been any cause of action for the plaintiffs to file a suit
claiming telecasting rights for themselves. Furthermore, it was the case
of the defendant No.3 itself that dispute between defendant No.3 and 4
subsided when the suit filed by defendant No.3 was returned in the year
1995 itself. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that even
though D. Suresh Babu filed a police complaint in the year 1995 itself        E
with regard to the alleged assignment dated 10.10.1994 but no further
proceedings were taken by D.Suresh Babu thereafter. The trial court in
its judgment has also returned a finding that the assignment dated
10.10.1994 by D. Suresh Babu in favour of defendant No.4 and assignment
dated 17.10.1994 by defendant No.4 to 3 has not been proved. The trial        F
court has itself returned the finding in paragraph 10(iv) to the following
effect:
      “10(iv) In such circumstances, it is the bounden duty of the
      defendants, who are relying upon such document i.e. assignment
      deed dated 10.10.1994 to establish that such document has been          G
      executed by P.W.1 conveying satellite broadcasting rights and
      other rights over the suit schedule films to fourth Defendant. But
      no such evidence is adduced on record. Neither original nor any
      authenticated copy of the said document is produced before the
      Court. Further, documents relating to transaction alleged to have
                                                                              H
984             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A           been entered into between fourth defendant and third defendant
            in respect of these films, also have not been produced before the
            Court. No evidence is adduced on record to establish the claims
            of the contesting defendants in respect of transfer of satellite
            broadcasting rights over the suit schedule films from one to another
            among Defendant Nos.3 and 4.”
B
             15. The trial court by its judgment dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit
      having accepted the case of the plaintiffs regarding assignment of
      telecasting rights of said schedule films i.e. assignment of 23.12.1994 in
      favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 at the request of defendant No.4 for 9
      years.The plaintiffs’ claim for the right of schedule films arose only after
C     22.12.2003. They having parted with their right, there was no real threat
      to their right by any inter-se dispute between defendant Nos.4 and 3 or
      other defendants. It was on 22.12.2003 that plaintiffs again became
      entitled to assign telecasting rights of the aforesaid 16 films after the
      expiry of the period of 9 years of assigning the telecasting right of 16
D     films to defendant Nos.5 to 8 on the request of the defendant No.4 on
      valuable consideration.
             16. The trial court while discussing Issue No.1 had observed that
      cause of occasion arose in the year 1995 itself when the plaintiff got
      knowledge of claim of the first defendant over the given films and
E     plaintiffs have chosen to file the suit in the year 2003 in respect of
      agreement dated 10.10.1994. The trial court further held that plaintiffs
      sat over their rights for eight long years, hence, suit is barred by time.The
      suit which was filed in the year 1995 by defendant No.3 against defendant
      No.4 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai where assignments dated
      10.10.1994 and 17.10.1994 were referred to got dismissed in the year
F     1995 itself as Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to consider the
      claim of defendant No.3.
              17. Cause of action to a plaintiff to file a suit accrues when there
      is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe a right. The plaintiff having
      already assigned their right for a period of 9 years by assignment deed
G     dated 23.12.1994, there was no cause of action during the aforesaid
      period of 9 years. When the plaintiffs had already parted with their right
      of telecasting films on 23.12.1994 there could not have been any threat
      to their right in the year 1995. This Court in Daya Singh and another
      vs. Gurdev Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And others, (2010) 2 SCC 194,
H     had laid down that a right to sue accrues when there is a clear and
 M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT                            985
 ENTERPRISES LTD.) v. SURESH PRODUCTIONS [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]


unequivocal threat to infringe a right of plaintiff. In paragraphs 14 and           A
15 following was laid down:
             “14. In support of the contention that the suit was filed within
        the period of limitation, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
        the appellant-plaintiffs before us submitted that there could be no
        right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit    B
        and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to
        infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is
        instituted. In support of this contention the learned Senior Counsel
        strongly relied on a decision of the Privy Council in Bolo v. Koklan,
        AIR 1930 PC 270. In this decision Their Lordships of the Privy
        Council observed as follows: (IA p. 331)                                    C

            “… There can be no ‘right to sue’ until there is an accrual of
        the right asserted in the suit and its infringement, or at least a
        clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right, by the defendant
        against whom the suit is instituted.”
                                                                                    D
      15. A similar view was reiterated in C. Mohammad Yunus v.
Syed Unnissa, AIR 1961 SC 808, in which this Court observed: (AIR
p. 810, para 7)
               “7. … The period of six years prescribed by Article 120
        has to be computed from the date when the right to sue accrues              E
        and there could be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the
        right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear
        and unequivocal threat to infringe that right.”
        In C. Mohammad Yunus, this Court held that the cause of action
        for the purposes of Article 58 of the Act accrues only when the             F
        right asserted in the suit is infringed or there is at least a clear and
        unequivocal threat to infringe that right. Therefore, the mere
        existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records cannot give
        rise to cause of action.”
       18. We are of the view that in view of the pleadings on the record
                                                                                    G
and facts of the present case, suit filed by the plaintiffs is wellwithin
limitation, the finding of the High Court that the suit is within limitation is
based on correct appreciation of facts and pleadings. We do not find any
merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

                                                                                    H
Nidhi Jain                                                      Appeal dismissed.