Court Holds Suit Over Alleged Sham Sale Is Governed by 12‑year Limitation Where Deed Is Void; Appeal Dismissed

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan heard an appeal by legal representatives of the original defendant against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had affirmed a first‑instance decree in favour of plaintiffs claiming one‑third share in agricultural land and had addressed whether the suit was time‑barred. The limited question before the Supreme Court concerned which Article of the Limitation Act governed the plaintiff’s suit challenging a 1973 registered sale deed alleged to be fraudulent and void ab initio.

The Court affirmed the ultimate conclusion reached by the High Court that the plaintiffs’ suit was maintainable, but clarified the correct legal position on limitation: where an instrument is void ab initio (for example because the alleged executant never executed it or consideration was not paid), the suit for possession based on title was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act (twelve years), not Article 59 (three years for setting aside instruments). The Court noted the concurrent findings that the plaintiff had not executed the disputed sale deed and that the defendants failed to prove payment of consideration. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “it would be of no consequence even if the plaintiff in one of his prayers seeks a declaration that the sale deed is a nullity or invalid insofar as he is concerned, since such an instrument would anyway be void owing to it being fraudulent. Therefore, the period of limitation for a suit for possession based on title would continue to be governed by Article 65.” The judgment also recorded the High Court’s finding that “evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs un‑clinchly proved that Rasali had never executed the disputed sale deed.”

Background The dispute arose from Civil Suit No. 782 of 1984, in which plaintiffs claimed one‑third co‑ownership and sought permanent injunction or, alternatively, joint possession, alleging a registered sale deed dated 14.06.1973 in favour of the defendant was “fraudulent, concocted and thereby void” as the plaintiff had not executed it and had not received sale consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit on facts and limitation; the first appellate court allowed the appeal, decreed the suit in plaintiffs’ favour and held the action was within time under Article 65. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, agreeing with factual findings but indicating Article 59 applied to the facts. The present appeal confined itself to whether the suit was time‑barred.

The Supreme Court reviewed precedents including State of Maharashtra v. Pravin J. Kamdar and Prem Singh v. Birbal, reiterated the distinction between documents that are voidable (where Article 59 may apply) and those void ab initio (where Article 65 governs suits for possession based on title). The Court found concurrent findings established that the alleged executant’s thumb impression was not hers, the original deed was not produced, key attesting witnesses were unavailable or partisan, and there was no credible proof of the balance sale consideration. The Court concluded that the 1973 deed was to be treated as a nullity for the plaintiff and that the suit filed in February 1984 fell within the twelve‑year period prescribed by Article 65. While noting that the High Court’s reasoning on the particular Article was erroneous, the Supreme Court found no infirmity in the result and dismissed the appeal.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11795 OF 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 24821/2018) Case Title: SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN v. JAGAN DEVI & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate (appearing for appellants/legal representatives) For the Respondent(s): Names of counsel for respondents not separately recorded in the judgment provided

Order delivered by: J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan on 12 September 2025 — appeal dismissed.