Short Note : 1. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs was that as the auction sale was void for the reason that the demand notice was not served on the judgment-debtor, the starting point for computing the period of limitation would not be when the auction sale took place or the date when it was confirmed, but from 20-9-1966 when the plaintiffs received notices of the proceedings under sections 107 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against them. He further contended that that was the date of infringement of their rights as they had been in possession till they were not threatened and to be dispossessed from the suit land, they could not have gone to safeguard their right as the auction sale, in their opinion, due to the defect mentioned above, was void. 2. Held: This Court is unable to appreciate the, submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. In the present case, the point in controversy is to be decided on the basis of the allegations in the plaint and the cause of action pleaded therein. Before the trial Court none of the parties made a prayer for recording of evidence for purposes of deciding the point of limitation and they confined their submissions on the basis of the plaint itself. Therefore, now to suggest that the trial Court ought to have first decided whether the auction was void or not after recording of the evidence is wholly unjustified at such a later stage. As such the last contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs need not detain the Court any further. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The relief for declaration is sought for purposes of declaring the auction sale held on 20-4-1959 and confirmed on 9-11-1959 as void and restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the suit land alleging that they were in possession of the same. In the opinion of this Court if such a suit is filed Article 120 of the Limitation Act (old) and Article 113 of the new Act would be applicable. If the plaintiffs wanted to protect their rights on the basis that the auction sale was void they could have pleased themselves by sitting at home without rushing to the Court. In the opinion of this Court if such a suit is filed Article 120 of the Limitation Act (old) and Article 113 of the new Act would be applicable. If the plaintiffs wanted to protect their rights on the basis that the auction sale was void they could have pleased themselves by sitting at home without rushing to the Court. 'But once they thought of going to Court and filed a suit for declaration that the said auction be declared void, then they will have to satisfy the Court that the suit has been filed within the period of limitation and the Court has first to determine that point as a preliminary issue. In the opinion of this Court, the starting point in such a case would be when the sale was confirmed on 9-11-1959 and not when the sale was in fact knocked down as held by the lower appellate Court, The reason is obvious as the sale might have been knocked down in favour of a particular person but due to some defect it may not be confirmed later on. It the sale is not confirmed there will be no infringement of any right. As such the starting point for limitation, for a party whose right would be infringement would be when the sale was confirmed. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that time would start running from 20-4-1966 when they received a notice of the proceedings under sections 107 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has no substance. Their continuing in possession was only a fraction of their right over the property. But it cannot be said that unless that is disturbed there was no infringement of the right, Right to a property consists of so many factors and if there is a infraction to any extent of that right, a right to sue arises. The words 'right to sue' mean a right to seek relief, a right to prosecute by law, to obtain relief by means of legal procedure. In other words right to sue accrues when a cause of action arise". The words 'right to sue' mean a right to seek relief, a right to prosecute by law, to obtain relief by means of legal procedure. In other words right to sue accrues when a cause of action arise". It is no doubt true that the question when a right to sue arises must depend largely upon the circumstances of the particular case and the words 'right to sue', therefore mean the right to bring a particular suit with reference to 'Which the plea of limitation is raised In the present case, the infringement of right took place, as alleged by the plaintiffs in their pleadings on 20-4-1959 when the sale was knocked down, but in the opinion of this Court, it should be on 9-11-1959 when the sale was confirmed. Phoolchand Harishanker v. Malthoo Prasad Jagannath Prasad, 1961 JLJ 484 , G. Mohammed Yunus v. Syed Unnieea and others, AIR 1961 SC 808 , relied on. Manmohanlal Shukla v. Board of Revenue and others, 1964 RN 1, Nanibai v. Gitabai, AIR 1958 SC 706 , referred to, Appeal dismissed.