2017 (11) TMI 1994 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of sale deed - it is stated that the petitioner by playing fraud got executed a registered sale deed in her favour from Ratanbai with respect to the suit property - plaintiffs were having knowledge of the sale deed or not - present suit filed nearly after lapse of 6 years - whether the suit is barred by time or not? - HELD THAT - The undisputed facts reveal that plaintiff No. 1 himself was a witness to the sale deed in question. The wife of the plaintiff No. 1 was again witness to the sale deed in question which was executed on 23.1.2010. A certified copy was also obtained by them on 16.7.2010 and undisputedly the civil suit has been filed on 3.2.2016. This Court in the case of LEELADHAR NARENDRA KUMAR UMRAOBAI VERSUS ANWAR PATEL SMT. RAMIBAI DALIPSINGH MOHANSINGH 2016 (3) TMI 1437 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT held that It is also clear that the present suit filed in the year 2011 to challenge the sale deeds of the year 1995 i. e. after 16 years is clearly barred by time while the period of limitation is only 3 years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners name in the revenue record were also recorded in the year 1995. Thus the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 is clearly barred by limitation. In light of the aforesaid judgment it can be safely gathered that the plaintiffs were having knowledge of the sale deed which was executed in the year 2010 and therefore as the limitation provided is only three years for challenging the sale deed the issue framed by the trial Court in respect of limitation has to be answered in favour of the defendants. As civil suit was filed after six years from the date of execution of the sale deed praying declaration of sale deed as null and void the suit was certainly barred by limitation in light of Article 59 of the Limitation Act - the revision stands allowed and the suit is dismissed as it is barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation
2. Valuation and Court Fees

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation:

The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the civil suit filed by the respondents is barred by the statute of limitations. The respondents challenged a sale deed executed on 23.1.2010, but the suit was filed on 3.2.2016, nearly six years later. According to the Limitation Act, the prescribed period for challenging such a sale deed is three years from the date of execution. The respondents argued that the cause of action arose on 26.1.2016 when the petitioner began demolishing the ground floor of the suit property. However, the court noted that the respondents were fully aware of the sale deed since its execution, as they were attesting witnesses to it. The sale deed was never disputed during the lifetime of the mother (Ratanbai) or thereafter until the filing of the suit. The court referenced the case of Leeladhar and others v. Anwar Patel, which emphasized that registration of a document is a notice to all concerned and that a suit filed after the prescribed limitation period is barred by law. The court concluded that the suit was indeed barred by limitation, as the respondents had knowledge of the sale deed since 2010, and no oral evidence was required to determine this issue.

2. Valuation and Court Fees:

The second issue pertains to whether the respondents paid the appropriate court fees. The trial court had framed six issues, with issue No. 4 specifically addressing the valuation and court fees. The respondents had paid fixed court fees on the plaint instead of ad valorem court fees. The trial court held that the respondents were liable to pay ad valorem court fees according to the valuation of the suit property (sale deed) and granted them time to do so. The court reiterated that the respondents were aware of the sale deed since its execution and had obtained a certified copy in 2010. Therefore, the respondents were required to pay the appropriate ad valorem court fees based on the valuation of the property in question.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the civil suit filed by the respondents was barred by limitation as it was filed six years after the execution of the sale deed, whereas the prescribed period is three years. Additionally, the respondents were required to pay ad valorem court fees according to the valuation of the suit property. The revision petition was allowed, and the suit was dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation.