2006 (5) TMI 517 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for declaration and partition of the land - claiming to be a co-sharer with the defendant - Whether the provision of Article 59 of the Limitation Act would be attracted in a suit filed for setting aside a Deed of Sale, is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order passed by the High Court? - HELD THAT - If the plaintiff is in possession of a property, he may file a suit for declaration that the deed is not binding upon him but if he is not in possession thereof, even under a void transaction, the right by way of adverse possession may be claimed. Thus, it is not correct to contend that the provisions of the Limitation Act would have no application at all in the event the transaction is held to be void. Respondent No.1 has not alleged that fraudulent misrepresentation was made to him as regards the character of the document. According to him, there had been a fraudulent misrepresentation as regards its contents. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent No.1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption. If a deed was executed by the plaintiff when he was a minor and it was void, he had two options to file a suit to get the property purportedly conveyed thereunder. He could either file the suit within 12 years of the deed or within 3 years of attaining majority. Here, the plaintiff did not either sue within 12 years of the deed or within 3 years of attaining majority. Therefore, the suit was rightly held to be barred by limitation by the trial court. Since the lower Appellate Court and the High Court were not right in law in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation, the judgments and decrees of the lower Appellate Court and that of the High Court are liable to be set aside and dismissal of the suit by the trial court on the ground that it is barred by limitation is liable to be restored. Hence, we allow this appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the High Court and that of the lower Appellate Court and restore the judgment and decree of the trial court. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs in all the courts.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Article 59 of the Limitation Act in a suit for setting aside a Deed of Sale.
2. Determination of the period of limitation for filing the suit.
3. Validity of the Deed of Sale executed by a minor.
4. Presumption of validity of a registered document.
5. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Article 59 of the Limitation Act:
The primary issue in this appeal is whether Article 59 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit filed for setting aside a Deed of Sale. The Supreme Court noted that Article 59 applies specifically when relief is claimed on the grounds of fraud or mistake, encompassing fraudulent transactions that are voidable. A suit for cancellation of an instrument is based on Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, which refers to both void and voidable documents and provides for discretionary relief.

2. Determination of the Period of Limitation:
The appellant contended that the suit filed on 24.9.1979 to set aside the Deed of Sale dated 1.12.1961 was barred by limitation. The period of limitation should start from the date the plaintiff attained majority, which was in 1969, requiring the suit to be filed within three years thereafter. The trial court found the suit barred by limitation, while the First Appellate Court and the High Court held otherwise, stating that the fraudulent execution of the Deed of Sale was discovered only on 22.8.1979.

3. Validity of the Deed of Sale Executed by a Minor:
The respondent argued that the Deed of Sale was executed when he was a minor, rendering it void. The Supreme Court observed that when a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same is not necessary as it is non-est in the eye of law. However, once a suit is filed for cancellation of a transaction, it would be governed by Article 59. The Court emphasized that Article 59 applies when coercion, undue influence, misappropriation, or fraud is asserted and proved.

4. Presumption of Validity of a Registered Document:
The Supreme Court highlighted the presumption that a registered document is validly executed, placing the onus on the person challenging it to rebut this presumption. In this case, the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of the registered Deed of Sale's validity.

5. Whether the Suit was Barred by Limitation:
The Supreme Court reiterated that limitation statutes are statutes of repose, barring a remedy but not extinguishing a right, with exceptions like Section 27 of the Limitation Act. The Court concluded that the suit was indeed barred by limitation, as it was not filed within three years of the respondent attaining majority or within twelve years of the execution of the Deed of Sale. Consequently, the judgments and decrees of the lower Appellate Court and the High Court were set aside, and the trial court's decision dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation was restored.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the High Court and the lower Appellate Court, and restored the trial court's judgment and decree dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs in all the courts.

← Previous Next →