RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS. versus PRASHANT GARG & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2364 · Decided: 23-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2364 : 2025 INSC 552
Rajeev Gupta & Ors.
v.
Prashant Garg & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 11061 of 2024)
23 April 2025
[Dipankar Dutta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the suit was barred by limitation; whether the 
sale deeds were void documents; whether the Will stood admitted 
in the previous suits and was no longer required to be proved; 
whether the First Appellate Court was right in decreeing the suit 
without the plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration/cancellation.
Headnotes†
Limitation Act, 1963 – Arts.58, 59 and 65 – Transfer of Property 
Act, 1882 – ss.54, 41 – Suit for cancellation of sale deed and 
recovery of possession – Limitation period – Will allegedly 
executed by the common ancestor of the parties, bequeathing 
suit property in favour of his two sons-I and Dr.K, and third 
son was bequeathed business of pharmacy – Thereafter, a 
family settlement in 1956, the names of wife of I and the third 
son mutated in respect of the suit property, with remaining 
properties being allotted to Dr.K – Rounds of litigation between 
the family members qua ownership of the suit property – 
Ultimately, Dr.K’s absolute right over the eastern portion of 
the suit property was accepted, third son was permitted to 
remain in possession thereof – Two sale deeds duly registered 
(qua the eastern and southern portions of the suit property) 
executed by the third son in favour of the appellants in 1992 – 
Thereafter, suit filed by Dr.K and his son (plaintiffs) against 
the appellants seeking cancellation of the sale deeds and 
possession of the suit property – Subsequently, the plaint 
amended whereby new relief added to the effect that the suit 
is based on title, and recovery of possession is sought on 
the basis of title and by way of abundant precaution plaintiff 
seeks relief of cancellation – Trial Court dismissed the suit – 
First Appellate court allowed the suit and granted the reliefs 
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
2365
Rajeev Gupta & Ors. v. Prashant Garg & Ors.
sought for – High Court dismissed the second appeal filed 
by the appellants – Appeal before this Court, wherein issue 
arose whether the suit was barred by limitation; whether the 
sale deeds were void documents; whether the Will stood 
admitted in the previous suits and was no longer required 
to be proved; and whether the First Appellate Court right 
in decreeing the suit without the plaintiffs seeking relief of 
declaration/cancellation:
Held: Subject suit of the plaintiffs could not have succeeded – 
Trial court, was right in dismissing the suit – Impugned second 
appellate judgment and decree of the High Court and the first 
appellate judgment and decree of the first appellate court, both 
set aside and that of the trial court restored, dismissing the subject 
suit – As regards limitation, the limitation period would have to be 
adjudged from the primary relief of cancellation which is 3 (three) 
years, and not the ancillary relief of possession which is 12 (twelve) 
years – Limitation period prescribed for suits seeking cancellation 
of documents being 3 (three) years, despite the cause of action 
having arisen in 1992, the plaintiffs chose to institute the suit 11 
(eleven) years later, the suit of the plaintiffs having been instituted in 
2003, was hopelessly barred by limitation and s.3 of the Limitation 
Act essentially entails its dismissal – Appellants had been put in 
possession of the suit property in furtherance of the sale deeds 
executed by and between third son and the former after the same 
were registered – Hence, suit seeking declaration of status or right 
simplicitor would not have sufficed for the plaintiffs since admittedly, 
they were required to seek further relief – Composite suit seeking 
cancellation, recovery of possession and injunction is what was 
required to be instituted, as distinguished from a suit seeking only 
recovery of possession – Thus, cancellation was the primary relief 
in the circumstances with recovery of possession being the ancillary 
relief – Plaintiffs did have knowledge-constructive as well as actual 
during the pendency of the second suit or soon thereafter of transfer 
of the suit property in favour of the appellants effected by the third 
son by way of execution of the sale deeds – It is from such date of 
knowledge in June, 1992 that the said transfer effectively did invade 
or jeopardize the plaintiffs’ interest in respect of the suit property – 

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