NINGAWWA versus BYRAPPA & 3 ORS.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 797 · Decided: 17-01-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
NINGAWWA 
v. 
BYRAPPA & 3 ORS. 
January 17, 1968. 
[J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Indian Limitation Act (9 of 1908), Arts. 91 and 95-Suit to set aside. 
gift deed on grounds of undue inffuence and fraud-Period of limitation 
and starting point for lbnitation. 
. .In 1938, the appellant executed a gift deed df four plots of land-two 
in village T and two in village L in favour of her husband. At that time 
the appellant was young and illiterate and her husband was in a position 
to dominate her will, and she believed that the document related only to 
the plots in villagt T which were originally the property of the husband. 
The properties in village L were inherited by the appellant froni her father .. 
They were very valuable and fertile and there was no reason whatever for 
her to gift them away to her husband. In 1941. the husband married a 
second wife but the appellant continued to live with him amicably till he 
died in 1949. Thereafter the conduct of the relatives of the second wife 
made her suspicious, and on enquiry, she found that the plots in ·village L 
were also included in the gift deed. She therefore filed a suit for setting 
aside the gift deed and for possession of all the four items of property, 
against the second wife and her children. 
The High Court, in appeal, 
dismissed ·the suit. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( 1) The appellant's husband included the two plots of land in 
village L in the gift deed by fraud and without the appellant's knowledge. 
Since the fraudulent misrepresentation w~s with respect to the contents 
and not the character of the document the transaction was not void-but 
only voidable. 
Therefore, the suit for setting aside the gift deed would 
be governed by Art. 95 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Since the Article 
prescribes a period of limitation of 3 years from the time whenthe fraud 
became known to the party wronged, and the suit in the present case was 
filed within a few days after the at>Pellant came to know of the fraud, the 
suit with respect to the items in village L was within time and should be 
decreed. [800 G; 802 A.C, BJ 
' 
Clough v. L. & N. W. Railway, (1871) 
LR. 7 Ex. 26; Foster v. 
Mackinon ( 1869) 4 C.P. 704, Sanni Bibi v. Siddik Hossain, A.LR. 1919 
Cal. 728 and Brindaban v. Dhurba Chc;ran, AJ.R. 1929 Cal. 606, referred 
to. 
(2) As regards the plots in village T, in view of s. 16(3) of the Indian 
Contract Act, and s, 111 of the Evidence Act the gift deed must be. pre-
sumed to have been obtained by the appellant's husband by undue inlluence. 
The suit with respect to these properties would tberefore be governed by 
Art. 91. The period of limitation prescribed by the Article is three years 
and, time begins to run from the date when the plaintiff discovered the 
facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside 
and not from the date when the plaintiff escaped from the undue inlluence. 
Since the appellant in the present case knew at the veiry time of the execu-
tion of the gift deed that her husband prevailed upon her to convey the 
plots in village T to him by undue inftueoce, her suit was barred by limita-
tion so far as he plots in village T ate concerned- [803 A-B, D, Jl,-0] 
L3 Sup. CJ/68-7 
798 
SUPREME COURT lll!PORTS 
(1968] 2 S.C.R. 
Somtshwar D11tt v. Tirbhawan Dutt, 61 I.A. 224, applied. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATF. JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 586 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 29, 1960 
of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. (B) 71 of 1956. 
K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant. 
Naunit Lal, for the respondent. 
The .ludgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from 
the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated July 29, 1960 in 
R.A. (B )· 71 of 19~6, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal 
of the respondents and dismissed the suit of the appellant. 
In the suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal the 
appellant asked for a decree for possession of the properties 
mentioned in the schedule to the plaint on the ground that she 
was the owner of the properties in spite of the gift deed, E;r;. 45 
executed by her on January 16, 1938. 
According to the case 
of the appellant, plot nos. 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village were 
inherited by her from her father and plot nos. 407/1 and 409/1 
of Tadavalga village were originally the properties of her husband 
Sh.iddappa. 
These plots had been usufructually 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.