SANTOSH DEVI versus SUNDER

Citation: [2025] 6 S.C.R. 156 · Decided: 01-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 156 : 2025 INSC 627
Santosh Devi 
v. 
Sunder
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12658 of 2025)
02 May 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court rightly dismissed the second appeal filed 
by the petitioner herein (plaintiff) affirming the judgment passed 
by the First Appellate Court which had upheld the decree passed 
by the trial court dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.
Headnotes†
Limitation Act, 1963 – s.17 – Effect of fraud or mistake – Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.6 – Grounds of exemption 
from limitation law – Petitioner filed suit seeking cancellation 
of sale deed on the ground that fraud was played upon her to 
sign the sale deed and thereby transfer the subject property – 
Suit dismissed on the ground of limitation – Challenge to:
Held: The initial onus was on the plaintiff who had challenged 
the sale deed – Fraud was alleged as a ground upon which the 
plaintiff justified the institution of the suit long after the expiry of 
the limitation period – Further, the requirement of Or.VII, r.6, CPC 
is also clear – The plaint should show the ground upon which the 
exemption from the normal period of limitation is claimed – It is not 
the mere use of general words such as ‘fraud’ that can serve as the 
foundation for the plea – Such expressions are quite ineffective to 
give the legal basis in the absence of particular statements of fact 
which alone can furnish the requisite basis for the action – Thus, 
the fraud relating to the sale transaction as alleged itself would 
not help the plaintiff in getting over the plea of limitation in this 
case – Under/s.17, Limitation Act, the plaintiff should have been 
kept out of knowledge of his right to sue by means of fraud – The 
alleged fraud relating to the sale transaction itself has nothing to 
do with the question viz., that the plaintiff had been kept out of 
knowledge of her right to file a suit for cancellation of the sale 
deed because of fraud – High Court committed no error in passing 
the impugned judgment. [Paras 17-19, 21, 22]
* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 
157
Santosh Devi v. Sunder
Case Law Cited
Janardhanam Prasad v. Ramdas (2007) 2 LJR 783; Prem Singh 
and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. [2006] Supp. 1 SCR 692 : (2006) 5 
SCC 353 – referred to.
Walling Ford v. Mutul Society (1880) 5 A.C. 685 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Limitation Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Section 17 of Limitation Act, 1963; Order VII Rule 6 of Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908; Fraud; Suit for cancellation of sale deed; 
Dismissal of suit; Limitation; Exemption from the normal period 
of limitation; Kept out of knowledge of right to sue; By means of 
fraud; Concurrent findings; Onus of proof; Registered document; 
Presumed to be genuine.
Case Arising From
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (Civil) No. 12658 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2024 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 520 of 2020
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Karan Kapoor, Manik Kapoor, Ms. Srishti Singla, Shrey Kapoor.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 
1.	
Delay condoned in filing and refiling the SLP.
2.	
This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 23.7.2024 
in Regular Second Appeal No. 520/2020 by which the High Court 
dismissed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and 
158
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
thereby affirmed the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate 
Court affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court 
dismissing the suit.
3.	
The petitioner is before us against the concurrent findings of three 
Courts.
4.	
It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner herein 
instituted Civil Suit No.310-RBT of 2012 in the Court of the Additional 
Civil Judge (SD), Ganaur for declaration with consequential, 
mandatory as well as permanent injunction.
5.	
In the plaint, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration may 
kindly be granted declaring the sale deed no.638 dated 
26.05.2008 as well as mutation no. 5340 dt.29.08.2008 
be set aside to the extent of 1/2 share executed in favour 
of the defendant Sunder, who fraudulently, forcibly get 
executed the sale dead and sanctioned mutation to the 
exte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.