In a significant pronouncement addressing the interplay between Articles 59 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Supreme Court examined whether a suit challenging a sale deed alleged to be fraudulent and void, instituted 11 years after its execution, could still be maintained within the prescribed limitation period. At the heart of the dispute was the question, does a void sale deed require cancellation under Article 59, or is a suit for possession based on ownership governed by Article 65? Read on to uncover how the Court resolved this critical issue of limitation and ownership rights.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a dispute over agricultural land measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of one-third share and filed a suit in 1984 for permanent injunction, or in the alternative, joint possession, alleging that the defendant relied on a fraudulent sale deed. The plaintiffs asserted they had neither executed the deed nor received consideration. The defendant, however, maintained that the sale deed was valid, duly executed by the plaintiff, and consideration of Rs. 15,000 was paid. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1991 as time-barred, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding the deed void and granting relief to the plaintiffs. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the decree in 2018, applying Article 59 to hold that the limitation ran from the date of knowledge. The defendant’s legal heirs then approached the Supreme Court.
Contention of the Appellant:
The appellant contended that the suit was barred by limitation since it had been filed more than 11 years after the execution of the 1973 sale deed. It was further argued that the First Appellate Court had erred in invoking Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, whereas the applicable provisions were Article 56 or 59. The appellant submitted that the burden of proving fraud rested heavily upon the plaintiffs, which they had failed to discharge. Emphasising the presumption of validity attached to registered instruments, the appellant argued that a registered sale deed carries with it a presumption of due execution, and the plaintiffs had failed to rebut this presumption with credible evidence.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents contended that both the First Appellate Court and the High Court had rightly found that the plaintiff never executed the impugned sale deed and that her thumb impression was never affixed on it. They argued that a sale deed executed without the owner’s participation is void ab initio, and therefore, there was no requirement to seek its cancellation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The respondents further submitted that Article 65 governs suits for possession based on ownership where a void instrument is relied upon, and since the suit was filed in 1984, it was well within the 12-year limitation period. They also argued that the defendant had failed to establish that consideration was ever paid or that the transaction was genuine.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that a valid document may require formal cancellation if challenged, but when a document is found to be void ab initio, meaning it never had any legal effect from the beginning, it is considered a nullity and does not require any decree for cancellation or setting aside. Specifically, the Court stated, “When a document is valid, no question arises of its cancellation. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non est in the eye of the law, as it would be a nullity.” This means such a document is treated as if it does not exist in the eyes of the law, removing the need for invoking Article 59 of the Limitation Act,1963, which applies to suits seeking to cancel or rescind transactions or instruments that are voidable but not void from the outset.
The Court held that Article 65 of the Limitation Act applies to suits for possession based on title where possession might have been taken under such void documents. The Court explained, “It was not necessary to seek a declaration about the invalidity of the said order and the sale deed. The fact of the plaintiff having sought such a declaration is of no consequence. When possession has been taken by the appellants pursuant to void documents, Article 65 of the Limitation Act will apply and the limitation to file the suit would be 12 years… Ignoring them a suit for possession simpliciter could be filed and in the course of the suit it could be contended that these documents are a nullity.”
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the fundamental requirement of consideration for a valid sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Noting the absence of any credible evidence to prove that consideration was paid for the sale deed, the Court held, “There is no evidence on record to prove that any consideration was paid. If the consideration is not paid, then there is no sale in the eyes of law.” Consequently, the deed claiming to effectuate the sale was void, reinforcing the application of Article 65 for limitation purposes.
The Court clarified that where the transaction or deed is void from the beginning due to the absence of execution by the owner or lack of consideration, it is treated as nonexistent for legal purposes, negating the need for cancellation under Article 59. Instead, suits for possession under such circumstances are governed by Article 65, providing a twelve-year limitation period within which claims can be brought. This ensures that plaintiffs who assert rightful title and possession are not barred prematurely by limitation simply due to the fraudulent or defective nature of purported instruments attributed to them.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court held that Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governed the suit, and since it was filed within 12 years from the execution of the impugned deed, it was not barred by limitation. The Court clarified the correct legal position on void transactions but ultimately dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the decree in favour of the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. Goran Vs. Jagan Devi & Ors.
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 11795 Of 2025
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
Advocate for Appellant: AOR Himanshu Sharma, Advs. Sandeep, Aditi Sharma, Arun Kumar, Varun Sharma, Richa Attrey, Kamlesh Kohli, Rahul Jasoria, Basant Kumar
Advocate for Respondent: AOR Arjun Singh Bhati, Adv. Sajal Sinha
Picture Source :
