Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011795-011795 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 29460/2018 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent concerning Article 65 applicability |
| Type of Law | Civil – Property and Limitation |
| Questions of Law | Which Article of the Limitation Act applies to a suit for possession based on title where the impugned sale deed is void ab initio? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar (2000); Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006); Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman (2025); Kewal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar (2022) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Distinction between void and voidable transactions; presumption of registered documents; principles from Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Limitation Act, 1963; Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiffs filed suit in 1984 challenging a 1973 sale deed as fraudulent. Trial court dismissed suit as time-barred. First Appellate Court applied Article 65 and decreed suit. High Court affirmed decree but held Article 59 applicable. Supreme Court confined itself to limitation issue. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows | State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar (2000) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that deeds void ab initio for fraud or no consideration are non-existent in law; no cancellation suit required.
- Distinguishes between fraud as to the character of a document (void) and fraud as to contents (voidable).
- Clarifies that Article 65’s 12-year limitation governs suits for possession based on title under void deeds.
- Prayer for declaration of nullity does not shift limitation to Article 59’s three years.
- Provides binding authority to counter objections based on Article 59 in quashing or possession suits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Lower courts found the 1973 sale deed void ab initio: plaintiff never executed and did not receive consideration.
- Void deeds need not be cancelled; they are non-existent as “nullities” (Unni v. Kunchi Amma; Bijoy Gopal Mukerji).
- Article 59 applies only to voidable instruments; Article 65 applies to suits for possession where the defendant’s possession is adverse under a void deed.
- Precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar and Prem Singh v. Birbal uphold Article 65’s applicability.
- Suit filed in 1984—within 12 years of defendant’s adverse possession from 1973—thus within limitation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Original Defendant/Appellant):
- High Court erred in applying Article 59; Article 56 or another provision should apply.
- Plaintiffs failed to prove fraud; burden lay on them to show sale deed was sham.
- Registered sale deed presumed valid until rebutted; defendant carried no onus once deed presumed genuine.
Respondent (Original Plaintiffs):
- Sale deed void ab initio—plaintiff never put thumb impression nor received consideration.
- Void deeds do not require cancellation; suit for possession lies under Article 65.
- Suit filed within 12 years of adverse possession; therefore timely under Article 65.
Factual Background
In 1984, plaintiffs sued to declare a 1973 sale deed fraudulent and for joint possession of one-third land share. The trial court dismissed as time-barred. The First Appellate Court reversed under Article 65 (12-year limit). The High Court affirmed decree but held Article 59 applicable. Supreme Court confined review to limitation, correcting the Article but upholding that the suit was within 12 years.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963: three-year period to cancel/set aside voidable instruments or contracts.
- Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963: 12-year period for suits for possession of immovable property based on title when defendant’s possession is adverse.
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54: sale requires consideration; absence renders deed void.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed