1952 (11) TMI 22 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the settlement deed dated 16-8-1925 was executed by the plaintiff under fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation.
2. Whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit properties within 12 years prior to the suit.
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
4. The entitlement of the plaintiff to mesne profits, past and future.
5. The relief to be granted.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Fraud, Undue Influence, and Misrepresentation

The plaintiff claims that the settlement deed executed on 16-8-1925 was obtained through fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation by the first defendant and his brother. The plaintiff alleges that she was led to believe the deed was a general power of attorney, not a deed of gift, and executed it without understanding its true nature. This misrepresentation is crucial because if the deed was executed under a misrepresentation as to its character, it would be considered void and not merely voidable.

Issue 2: Possession of Suit Properties

The plaintiff must establish that she has been in possession of the suit properties within 12 years prior to the suit. This issue is tied to her claim of fraud and misrepresentation, as her awareness and possession of the properties would impact the limitation period for filing the suit.

Issue 3: Limitation

The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Limitation Act. Article 91 provides a three-year period for suits to cancel or set aside an instrument. The court distinguishes between void and voidable transactions, stating that Article 91 does not apply to void instruments. If an instrument is void, it does not transfer title, and the plaintiff does not need to seek its cancellation to claim possession. Instead, the limitation period under Article 144, which allows for a longer period, would apply.

The court references several cases to support this distinction, including:
- Petheperumal Chetty v. Muniandi Servai: Established that a void instrument does not bar the plaintiff's right to recover possession.
- Sanni Eibi v. Siddik Hossain: Held that a deed executed under a misrepresentation as to its character is void, and Article 91 does not apply.
- Rajah Singh v. Chaichoo Singh: Confirmed that a deed executed under the impression of being a different document is void, making Article 91 inapplicable.

The court concludes that the settlement deed in question is void if the plaintiff's allegations are true, as she believed she was signing a power of attorney, not a deed of gift. Therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation under Article 91.

Issue 4: Mesne Profits

The court does not provide a detailed analysis of mesne profits in this judgment, as the primary focus is on the limitation issue. This issue will be addressed upon remand.

Issue 5: Relief

The court remands the case for a detailed examination of all issues except the limitation issue, which has been resolved in favor of the plaintiff. The suit is not barred by limitation, and the lower court must now address the remaining issues, including the validity of the deed and the plaintiff's entitlement to mesne profits and possession.

Conclusion:

The appeal is allowed, and the suit is remanded for further proceedings on all issues except the limitation issue. The court holds that the suit is not barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Limitation Act, as the deed in question is void if the plaintiff's allegations are proven. The costs of the appeal will abide by the result of the suit.