9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of Ext. D sale-deed 2. Whether Ext. D was intended to take effect 3. Limitation period for filing the suit Analysis: 1. The case involved a second appeal arising from a suit for the declaration of the void and inoperative nature of a sale-deed (Ext. D) executed by the 1st plaintiff in favor of the 1st defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit, while the lower appellate court allowed it, leading to this second appeal. 2. The central issue was whether the sale-deed (Ext. D) was a genuine sale and intended to take effect. The document purported to convey property for a consideration of Rs. 198, allegedly advanced by the 1st defendant's father to the 1st plaintiff on behalf of the Tarwad. However, discrepancies arose regarding the actual advance of funds and utilization. The court analyzed the evidence of the parties involved, including the denial of the alleged gift by the father and the lack of concrete details from the defendants. Ultimately, the court favored the lower appellate court's conclusion that Ext. D lacked consideration and was not intended to be effective. 3. Another crucial aspect was the question of whether the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court incorrectly applied Article 78 of the Limitation Act, suggesting the suit was time-barred. However, the correct application was Article 91, which pertains to canceling or setting aside an instrument. The court clarified that Article 91 only applies to voidable documents, not void ones. Given the finding that Ext. D was sham and nominal, Article 91 did not apply, and the suit was not time-barred. The judgment dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
|
