Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through LRS. Vs Jagan Devi & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court of India in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi & Ors. examined a dispute concerning the applicability of limitation provisions under the Limitation Act, 1963, in the context of a fraudulent sale deed. The primary issue before the Court was whether Article 59 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act would govern the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff alleged that a sale deed dated 14.06.1973, transferring a portion of her property, was fraudulent and executed without her consent. She claimed that she never received the sale consideration, and the transaction was void ab initio. The dispute involved whether the suit for possession based on her title could be maintained, and the period of limitation applicable thereto. The High Court had held that Article 59, which deals with suits to cancel or set aside instruments or contracts, was applicable. The plaintiff challenged this finding.
Legal Framework
-
Article 59: Three-year limitation for cancellation of an instrument or rescission of a contract, counted from the date the plaintiff becomes aware of the facts justifying the action.
-
Article 65: Twelve-year limitation for a suit for possession of immovable property based on title, counted from the date when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff argued that Article 65 should apply because the sale deed was fraudulent, rendering it void and incapable of conferring any title. Consequently, no cancellation proceeding under Article 59 was necessary.
Judicial Analysis
The Court considered the findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, both of which concluded that the plaintiff had never executed the sale deed, and thus it was void. The courts also observed that the purported payment of sale consideration was unsubstantiated, as no credible evidence was produced by the defendants to prove either the payment of Rs. 6,000/- during execution or the initial Rs. 9,000/-. Witnesses were either deceased or partial, and the execution of the deed without consideration rendered the transaction legally ineffective.
The Court relied on several precedents:
