The Supreme Court clarified that when a sale deed is void ab initio due to non-execution by the owner, a suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing a 12-year limitation period. Article 59, which applies to voidable instruments requiring cancellation, is inapplicable. A plaintiff challenging a void transaction is not obligated to seek its cancellation and can file a simpliciter suit for possession within twelve years from when the defendant’s possession became adverse.
Facts Of The Case:
The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Rasali, instituted a suit claiming a one-third share in agricultural land, alleging that a sale deed dated 14.06.1973, which purportedly transferred the land to the defendant, Shanti Devi, was fraudulent. They contended that Rasali never executed the document, received any sale consideration, or appeared before the Sub-Registrar. The defendant asserted the sale was genuine, supported by mutation records, and argued the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court decreed it, holding the transaction void. The High Court, though applying Article 59 of the Limitation Act, ultimately dismissed the defendant’s second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the core issue was the applicable limitation period. The Court held that since the sale deed was found void ab initio due to non-execution and fraud, it was a nullity, and a suit for possession based on title was governed by Article 65, allowing a 12-year period. The suit, filed within 11 years of the sale deed, was thus within limitation.
Procedural History:
The suit was initially dismissed by the Trial Court. The plaintiffs then preferred a First Appeal, which was allowed by the District Court, decreeing the suit in their favor. The defendant, aggrieved by this reversal, filed a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court. The High Court, while differing with the First Appellate Court on the applicable article of the Limitation Act, nonetheless dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the decree. The legal heirs of the original defendant then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which granted leave and confined its analysis to the substantial question of law regarding limitation. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the maintainability of the suit.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court’s Landmark Order: Sexual Harassment Judgement to be Part of Accused’s Permanent Record
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that a sale deed found to be void ab initio, as it was not executed by the true owner, is a legal nullity. For such a void instrument, a plaintiff is not obligated to seek its cancellation, and thus, Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which governs suits to set aside voidable transactions, is inapplicable. Instead, a suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65, which prescribes a 12-year limitation period from when the defendant’s possession became adverse. The Court further clarified that even if a declaration is sought regarding the void nature of the document, it does not change the character of the suit from one for possession, and the limitation period remains 12 years. On the facts, the Court found the suit was filed within this period.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the First Appellate Court and the High Court that had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. While clarifying the legal position that Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and not Article 59, applies to a suit for possession when the challenged sale deed is void ab initio, the Court found no infirmity in the ultimate outcome. It ruled that the suit, having been filed within 12 years from the date of the void transaction, was well within the limitation period prescribed under Article 65. The plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to the relief of joint possession of their share in the suit property.
Case Details:
Case Title: SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN VERSUS JAGAN DEVI & ORS. Citation: 2025 INSC 1105 Civil Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 11795 of 2025 Date of Judgement: 12th September, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan