Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute involved agricultural land measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas in village Bisar Akbarpur, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of one-third share and alleged that the defendant had obtained a fraudulent sale deed dated 14.06.1973 through impersonation and without consideration. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction to restrain interference with possession and, alternatively, joint possession and cancellation of the sale deed. The defendant contended that the sale deed was executed validly by the plaintiff and her brother Ram Saran for consideration of Rs.15,000, was read over and explained, and mutation was sanctioned; the defendant also raised objections as to maintainability, locus standi, estoppel and limitation. Facts: The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 782 of 1984 on the basis that they came to know of the fraudulent transaction on 04.02.1984 when the defendant attempted to sell the land. The trial court framed seven issues covering validity of sale deed, joint possession, maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, limitation and relief, and answered all issues against the plaintiffs, dismissing the suit on 14.10.1991. The first appellate court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1991, and decreed the suit, holding that the transaction was void and the plaintiff had never executed the sale deed, and that the suit was within the twelve-year period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The defendant then filed Regular Second Appeal No. 2930 of 1996 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which was dismissed on 22.02.2018. Legal Issues: The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by limitation and which article of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied; whether the sale deed was fraudulent, illegal and void due to impersonation and lack of consideration; and whether the suit for permanent injunction with alternative joint possession was maintainable without separate declaration. Arguments: The plaintiffs argued that the sale deed was fraudulent, no sale consideration was received, and the cause of action arose on 04.02.1984; they relied on Article 65 for a twelve-year limitation for possession. The defendant argued that the sale deed was valid, the plaintiff appeared before the Sub-Registrar, mutation was sanctioned, the suit was not maintainable without seeking declaration, and it was barred by time, relying on The State of Punjab v. Babu Singh for three-year limitation from mutation. Court's Analysis: The High Court disagreed with the first appellate court on limitation, holding that Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963—not Article 63—applied to a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument or for rescission of a contract; under that provision, limitation was three years from the date of knowledge of facts entitling the plaintiff to cancel the instrument. The High Court opined that limitation would not bar the suit because it could be filed from the date of knowledge as per Article 59. The Supreme Court, in the available excerpt, granted leave and noted the procedural history but the excerpt did not include the final Supreme Court reasoning or operative order. Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the first appellate court's decree. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. No final Supreme Court decision is included in the provided judgment text.
Headnote
A) Limitation Law - Applicability of Limitation Act Articles - Suit challenging fraudulent sale deed and seeking possession - Limitation Act, 1963, Articles 59, 63, 65 - The plaintiffs alleged that a sale deed dated 14.06.1973 was fraudulent, concocted and void due to impersonation, and sought permanent injunction or alternatively joint possession over one-third share in agricultural land. The First Appellate Court applied Article 65 and held the suit within twelve years; the High Court differed and applied Article 59, holding the suit could be filed from the date of knowledge. Held that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit for cancellation of an instrument was maintainable within three years from the date of knowledge, and limitation would not bar the suit (Paras 10-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs challenging the sale deed dated 14.06.1973 was barred by limitation, and which article of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies—Article 59 (three years from knowledge) or Article 65 (twelve years for possession).
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed Regular Second Appeal No. 2930 of 1996 and affirmed the First Appellate Court's decree. The High Court held that Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied and that limitation would not bar the suit as it could be filed from the date of knowledge. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal; no final Supreme Court operative order is included in the provided excerpt.
Law Points
- Suit to cancel or set aside an instrument is governed by Article 59 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- with three-year limitation from date of knowledge
- Suit for possession based on adverse possession is governed by Article 65 of Limitation Act
- with twelve-year limitation
- A fraudulent or void sale deed does not bar the true owner from seeking possession
- Second appeal dismissal affirms first appellate court's decree
- Findings on fraud and limitation can be challenged in second appeal
