Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.65 or Art.59 – The plaintiffs instituted civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession – In the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed that they be put in joint possession along with the defendant and the sale deed dated 14.06.1973 be declared as fraudulent, concocted and thereby, void – Suit was dismissed – In first appeal, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed – The High Court vide its impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate court decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs – However, insofar as the issue of limitation was concerned, the High Court differed with the First Appellate Court and came to the conclusion that it is Art.59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not Art.63 that would be applicable to the facts of the matter – Correctness:
Held: 1. As per the dictum in Prem Singh, this Court, in order to ascertain whether Art.65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the present factual scenario, has to first determine whether the fraud was alleged as regards the contents of the sale deed dated 14.06.1973 or the character of such sale deed – Both the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court have arrived at the finding that the plaintiff had never executed the said sale deed in the first place as it was proved that it was not her thumb impression that was affixed therein – Therefore, this finding goes to the character of the sale deed and thereby, renders it void/void ab initio – Hence, as per this decision, there remained no reason for the plaintiff to seek for its cancellation – The original sale deed also was not produced before the Trial Court by the defendants in order to rebut the doubt cast upon the veracity of the said sale deed – Consequently, Art. 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would find no application to the case in hand. [Para 31]
2. The averment of the plaintiff in the plaint, that she had not received the sale consideration, had not been otherwise proven as false – In such circumstances as well, i.e., in the absence of the sale consideration being tendered, the sale deed would be void and the plaintiff would not be required to seek its cancellation. Therefore, Art.59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be said to be applicable to the present facts. [Para 38]
3. The High Court could be said to have committed an error insofar as observing that it is Art.59 and not Art. 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which would apply to the case in hand – However, irrespective of the question of which Article of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable to the suit instituted by the present plaintiff, the suit could be said to have been filed within limitation – Therefore, apart from clarifying the correct position of law, there is no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion that the High Court arrived at as far as the maintainability of the suit on the aspect of limitation is concerned. [Para 40]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.