9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Recovery of possession and declaration of title, cancellation of deed of sale due to fraudulent representation, claim of land possession, limitation period, application of Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act, validity of deed execution based on fraud or misrepresentation. Analysis: The plaintiffs appealed to recover possession of a share of land and sought title declaration, alleging fraudulent representation by the defendant regarding a deed of sale. The claim originally included fifteen plots, but during the trial, some plots were abandoned. The lower courts found that certain plots were out of the plaintiffs' possession for over twelve years, thus barred by limitation. The remaining plots were also held barred by limitation due to the necessity of canceling the deed of sale before succeeding. The lower Appellate Court did not delve into the fraud aspect after deeming the entire claim time-barred. The main contention raised was that if the deed was void ab initio due to fraud, Article 91 would not apply. The argument was supported by legal principles stating that consent obtained through fraud renders the agreement voidable under the Contract Act. Citing English cases, it was established that if a deed is executed based on false information, it is considered void. The court emphasized the precedence of such cases and their application in similar situations, indicating that if the plaintiffs executed the deed under false pretenses, it would be deemed void. The High Court decreed the appeal, remanding the case for rehearing to determine the circumstances of the deed's signing by the plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court was instructed to assess whether the plaintiffs' claim to the remaining plots was time-barred, considering the findings on the deed's execution. The costs were to be determined based on the final outcome of the rehearing, indicating a comprehensive review of the case based on the fraud element and the limitation period's applicability.
|
