Bombay High Court Ruling on the Validity of Sale Deeds from 1969 and 2008. Court examines a dispute over a family's property sale from decades ago and the legality of subsequent transactions.


Summary of Judgement

The Bombay High Court delivered a judgment on a dispute involving Jayesh Dinesh Kadam, who challenged two registered sale deeds, one from 1969 and another from 2008, claiming they were illegal and void. The court evaluated whether the suit filed by Kadam was barred by limitation, as the transactions in question occurred many years ago. The plaintiff argued that he only became aware of the sale deeds in 2022, which led to the filing of the suit. The defendants sought rejection of the suit based on the limitation period, but the court held that the issue of when the plaintiff became aware of the sale deeds was a triable issue that required further examination.

1. Background of the Case

  • The suit involves property originally owned by the plaintiff's great-grandfather and subsequently sold through registered sale deeds in 1969 and 2008.
  • The plaintiff sought to declare these sale deeds illegal and void, arguing they were executed in violation of a family will.

2. Arguments by the Defendants

  • Defendants argued that the suit was time-barred and should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
  • They contended that the plaintiff was aware of the sale deeds much earlier and that his claims of delayed knowledge were not credible.

3. Arguments by the Plaintiff

  • The plaintiff maintained that he only became aware of the impugned sale deeds in 2022 when he received a notice related to a writ petition.
  • He argued that the limitation period should begin from the date of his knowledge, making the suit timely.

4. Court's Analysis and Decision

  • The court considered whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation and whether there was a valid cause of action.
  • The court concluded that the issue of when the plaintiff became aware of the sale deeds was a matter that required further evidence and could not be dismissed at the initial stage.

5. Conclusion

  • The court did not dismiss the plaintiff's suit, allowing it to proceed to the stage where evidence could be examined, thus leaving the question of limitation open for further determination.

The Judgement

Case Title: Jayesh Dinesh Kadam and Anr. Versus Andrew David Fernandes through POA, Balkrishna Ashok Shelar and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (8) 95

Case Number: CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.75 OF 2024

Date of Decision: 2024-08-09