Specific Performance: Agreement to sell – Cancellation of sale deed – Limitation period – Respondentno. 2-original owner agreed to sell his agricultural land to appellant-purchaser for the sale consideration – Before the execution of the sale deed, a declaration decree was obtained by the wife of the respondent no.
2 against the respondent no. 2 whereby she was declared the owner of the land, however, this was not brought to the notice of the appellant nor there was mutation in the revenue record – Thereafter, respondent no. 2 executed registered sale deed in favour of appellant and its name was entered in the revenue records – Appellant remained in possession and since then is cultivating the land – After
5 years, the wife of the respondent no. 2 filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed in respect of the suit property on the basis of the declaratory decree obtained by her – Trial court decreed the suit, declaring that the sale deed in favour of the appellant was illegal and nullity as the respondent no. 2 had no title over the land when he executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant – However, the first appellate set aside the decree – In appeal, the High Court restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial court – On appeal, held: Suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by the wife of the respondent no. 2 was clearly barred by law as it was required to be filed within the period of three years from the date of the knowledge of the sale deed – Relief for possession is a consequential prayer and the substantive prayer was of cancellation of the Sale Deed and thus, the limitation period is required to be considered with respect to the substantive relief claimed and not the consequential relief–When composite suit is filed for cancellation of the sale deed as well as for recovery of the possession, the limitation period is to be considered with respect to the substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed, which would be three years from the date of the knowledge of the sale deed sought to be ANR.
cancelled – Suit filed by the wife of the respondent no. 2 for cancellation of the sale deed, can be said to be a substantive thus, the same was clearly barred by limitation–Hence, the suit ought to have been dismissed on the ground of limitation –Appellant can be said to be a bona fide purchaser and that the decree obtained by the wife of the respondent no. 2 was a collusive decree – When the wife of the respondent no. 2 obtained the collusive decree,there was already an agreement to sell in favour of the appellant and subsequently appellant paid the entire balance sale consideration, which was accepted by the respondent no. 2–High Court failed to consider all these aspects – Thus, the judgment and order of the High Court is unsustainable and is set aside and that of the first appellate court is restored and the suit filed by the wife of the respondent no. 2 is dismissed – Limitation.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.