When Sale Deed Is Void, Suit For Possession Governed By Limitation Period Of 12 Years Under Article 65 Instead Of Art 59 : Supreme Court.

 When Sale Deed Is Void, Suit For Possession Governed By Limitation Period Of 12 Years Under Article 65 Instead Of Art 59 : Supreme Court.

Cause Title: SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN VERSUS JAGAN DEVI & ORS.


The Supreme Court on Friday (Sep.12) held that a suit instituted seeking possession of immovable property on the ground that the defendant's sale deed is void is governed by the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, rather than the shorter 3-year period under Article 59 of the Act. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan clarified that where possession is claimed over property by the defendant based on a forged and void sale deed, he suit can be filed within 12 years, as such possession is treated as adverse to the plaintiff.


“Therefore, the plaintiff could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the date of knowledge that the possession of the defendant was adverse to that of the plaintiff.”, the Court observed.


The case relates to the dispute over agricultural land in Haryana. The legal heirs of the Appellant-Defendant claimed ownership based on a 1973 sale deed. The heirs of the original plaintiff-Respondent, argued her signature was forged, she never received any payment, and the deed was therefore void. They filed a suit in 1984 seeking possession of her one-third share.


The issue was whether a plaintiff's suit, filed 11 years after the alleged sale, was barred by limitation. 


The defendant argued it was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which allows only 3 years to "cancel or set aside an instrument" from the date of knowledge. 


Rejecting the Appellant-defendant's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala observed that Article 59 applies only to voidable instruments i.e., those which are prima facie valid but susceptible to being set aside for fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation.


As the 1973 sale deed was declared void ab initio and never executed by the plaintiff-respondent, the Court held it to be a nullity. When the document in question is void ab initio/or void, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary since such a transaction would be non-est in the eyes of law, owing to it being a nullity. Reference was made to Prem Singh v. Birbal reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353.


Reference was made to the recent judgment in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 466which held that a person who is not a party to an instrument would not be obliged in law to seek its cancellation. In State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar reported in 2000 SCC OnLine SC 522, it was held that as far as void and non-est documents are concerned, it would be enough for the plaintiff to file a simpliciter suit for possession to which Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply. 


Reference was made to Kewal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar and Others reported in (2022) 18 SCC 489 which held that if a sale deed is executed without the payment of price, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law, and would be void. 


In the present case, the Court noted that in the absence of the sale consideration being tendered, the sale deed would be void and the plaintiff would not be required to seek its cancellation. Therefore, Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be said to be applicable to the present facts. 


"To put it simply, in the eyes of the law, the plaintiff could not be said to have executed the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the date of knowledge that the possession of the defendant was adverse to that of the plaintiff," the Court said. 


The Court concluded that the High Court committed an error insofar as observing that it is Article 59 and not Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which would apply to the case in hand.


Regards 

BharathAditya 

Advocate 

VAREN Law Firm 

Bangalore 

9844734166

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines To SHOs On Summoning Persons U/S 35 BNSS

  Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines To SHOs On Summoning Persons U/S 35 BNSS High Court of Karnataka Bangalore  Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna WP No 15125/2024 (GM-RES) REPORTED  DATE : 19/07/2024 Cause Title- Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka & Ors The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines drawing a check list to Station House Officers (SHOs) for summoning persons under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a man calling in question a notice issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amruthalli Police Station under Section 41(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, “In the light of the mandate of law under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C., which is now under Section 35 of the BNSS, it becomes necessary to the State to issue guidelines drawing a check list to all those Station House Officers, akin to what...
Read more
  The Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007: An Overview The legislation, Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is initiated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment ‘to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto’. This Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and it applies also to citizens of India outside India. As per the Act, the term ‘senior citizen’ means ‘any person being a citizen of India, who has attained the age of sixty years or above’. In this article, we will explore important provisions of the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007.  Important Provisions of the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act Section 4 (Maintenance of Parents And Senior Citizens) : It st...
Read more

Maintenance & Its Types Under Various Sections

 Maintenance & Its Types Under Various Sections What is Maintenance? Maintenance is a law under which a person, who is unable to maintain herself/himself for survival, takes financial help from his Guardian legally. The amount given by Guardian is called Maintenance. Wife can seek maintenance from her Husband, Children from Father, old parents from son or handicapped husband can seek maintenance from his wife. Types of Maintenance Add Maintenance We can understand this through an example. Wife has filed maintenance case on husband. During the proceedings, Wife is able to prove that she is unable to maintain herself on her own. In this situation, in first or second hearing, without any arguments Court will grant add maintenance to wife from husband’s side. Before the Judgment of the matter, wife will start getting add maintenance from husband. This is the power of Judge where they can put add maintenance on the party whether it is a Women Cell or Family Court. Interim Maintenanc...
Read more