JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J. :This Regular Second Appeal has been directed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.1988 of the learned District Judge, Mandi, affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.2.1988 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (11), Mandi. 2. The pedigree table, as can be gathered from the evidence available on the record, showing the relationship of the parties, is as under :- Bhadroo | | Sant | | Nand (Died issueless) on 6.9.1998 BK) | Lauhaloo | | | | | Debu (deceased Plaintiff) | | Jhangru (son) | Gangu (son) | Smt. Chaitree (daughter) | Chaitru Defendant No.1 to 4 (son and Daughter) | Damodar Defendant No.5 to 10 (sons, daughter and widow) | Udoo Dependents No. 11 to l5 (sons and daughters) (Present Plaintiffs) 3. The subject matter of the dispute between the parties is the estate left behind by Shri Nand, who died issueless on 6.9.1998 BK, that is, .rm65 corresponding to the year 1941 by British calendar, comprising of land measuring 18-0-18 bighas of Khewat/khatauni No.59/52/115-116 and Khasra Nos.389 to 394 and 397 in village Khuhan, Ilaqa Naraingarh, Sub Tehsil Bali-Chowk, in District Mandi, specifically detailed in the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute. 4. Debu, deceased plaintiff, filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction to the effect that he was the exclusive owner and in possession of the entire laud in dispute and that the mutation of inheritance qua the share of the deceased Nand sanctioned in favour of Lauhaloo (the predecessor in interest of the defendants) on 1.10 199E BK was wrong, illegal, void and not binding on his rights. 5. It was averred that the land in dispute was obtained by way of Nautor by Sant, father of the deceased plaintiff, Debu, sometimes in the year 1897 AD. Later on he also got the name of his brother Nand entered in the revenue record as co-owner. The said Nand died on 6.9.1998 BK. On his death, the mutation of inheritance qua his half share in the land in dispute came to be wrongly sanctioned in favour of the deceased plaintiff Debu and Lauhaloo on 1.10.1998 BK. The deceased plaintiff Debu was the only legal heir of the deceased Nand being his real brother. The said Nand died on 6.9.1998 BK. On his death, the mutation of inheritance qua his half share in the land in dispute came to be wrongly sanctioned in favour of the deceased plaintiff Debu and Lauhaloo on 1.10.1998 BK. The deceased plaintiff Debu was the only legal heir of the deceased Nand being his real brother. He succeed to the estate of the deceased to the exclusion of Lauhaloo and came in exclusive possession thereof. 6. The defendants, who are the legal heirs of Lauhaloo, on the basis of the wrong mutation sanctioned in favour of Lauhaloo and the subsequent wrong revenue entries in their favour have started interfering with the possession of the deceased plaintiff Debu with the intention of taking forcible possession thereof. 7. The suit was resisted by the defendants. It was averred that Lauhaloo was also the brother of deceased Nand and was thus entitled to succeed to the estate of Nand alongwith the deceased plaintiff Debu. The mutation of inheritance qua the estate of deceased Nand was rightly sanctioned in favour of Debu and Lauhaloo in equal shares. It was further averred that Lauhaloo came into joint possession of the land in dispute alongwith Debu and he continued to be in possession till his death whereafter the defendants are coming in joint possession of the land in dispute. Objections as to the maintainability of the suit and limitation were also raised. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court :- 1. Whether plaintiff is sole owner in possession of suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD. 4. Relief. All the three issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff Debu was the sole owner and in possession of the land in dispute. He had succeeded to the estate of the deceased Nand to the exclusion of Lauhaloo and the mutation of inheritance sanctioned on 1.10.1998 BK was wrong, null and void. The suit was found to be maintainable and within time. 9. On an appeal having been carried before the learned District Judge by the defendants, the findings of the trial court were affirmed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.10.1988. 10. The suit was found to be maintainable and within time. 9. On an appeal having been carried before the learned District Judge by the defendants, the findings of the trial court were affirmed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.10.1988. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have come up before this court by virtue of the present second appeal. 11. It will not be out of place to mention here that the original plaintiff Debu died during the pendency of the present appeal. The present respondents No.l to 3, being his sons and daughters, respectively, were therefore, brought on record as plaintiff. 12. Be it stated, that the two courts below have come to a concurrent finding that the plaintiff Debu alone had succeeded to the estate of the deceased Nand to the exclusion of Lauhaloo and that he is in exclusive possession thereof. Such finding are findings on a question of fact which cannot be interfered with the in present second appeal, even if such findings might be erroneous. The Honble Apex Court in Kashi Bai & Anr. v. Parwati Bai & Ors., (1996(1) SLJ 31S), has held that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact based on appreciation of the relevant evidence. The findings of the two courts below on the question of fact are well reasoned based on proper appreciation of evidence and as such the same do not call for interference. 13. The present second appeal, infact, came to be admitted on the following question, was barred by limitation ?" 14. According to the learned counsel for the defendants the present suit is governed by Art, 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides a period of three years for a suit like the present one, from the date when the- right to sue had accrued to the plaintiff. It is contended that the mutation of inheritance qua the estate of deceased Nand was sanctioned in favour of Lauhaloo to the extent of half share to the knowledge and in the presence of deceased plaintiff Debu on 1.10.1998 BK corresponding to the year 1941 by British calendar. Thereafter, the suit should have been filed within three years from 1.10.1998 BK. Thereafter, the suit should have been filed within three years from 1.10.1998 BK. The suit whcih came to be filed on 28.10.1986 AD that is, after a lapse of about 45/46 years of the sanctioning of the mutation, on the face of it, was barred by time. 15. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the cause of action accrued to him on 8.6.1986 BK when the defendants tried to uproot the maize crop sown by him after making forcible entry in the land in dispute and that since then they arc threatening him with forcible dispossession. 16. It is well settled that mutation does not confer any title. It is equally well settled that more entry of the mutation in the name of the defendant docs not furnish a cause of action to the plaintiff to file a declaratory suit. 17. In the present case the plaintiff Debu has been found to be in continued possession of the land in dispute even after the sanction of mutation in the name of Lauhaloo, the predecessor in interest of the defendants. No cloud was cast on the title of the plaintiff by mere entry of mutation in the name of Lauhaloo. The cause of action would be deemed to have arisen to the plaintiff only when the defendants threatened and tried to take forcible possession of the land in dispute. (See: Niamat Singh v. Darbari Singh, (1956 P.L.R. 461), and Ibrahim alias Dharam Vir v. Smt. Sharifan alias Shanti, (1979 S.L.J. (P and H) 38). 18.It has also been held by the Apex Court in C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa & Ors., (AIR 1961 Supreme Court 808), that "right to sue" in Article 58, Limitation Act, is not there until an accrual of right asserted and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant. In other words, no right to sue would accrue for the purpose of Art. 58 unless there was actual interference with the plaintiffs right, not by a mere denial nor by mere oral protests which have no apparent connection with the actual exercise of the right of enjoyment of the property. 19. There is nothing on the record to show that at any time before 8.6.1986 the defendants had ever asserted or claimed their possession of the land in dispute. 19. There is nothing on the record to show that at any time before 8.6.1986 the defendants had ever asserted or claimed their possession of the land in dispute. Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the suit was within time. The findings of the courts below are correct and do not call for any interference. 20. Consequently, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. -