LexSHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN versus JAGAN DEVI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 825 : 2025 INSC 1105 Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through LRs. Goran v. Jagan Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11795 of 2025) 12 September 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the plaintiff’s suit was time-barred or not. Whether it is Article 65 or Article 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which would apply to the present facts in hand. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.65 or Art.59 – The plaintiffs instituted civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession – In the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed that they be put in joint possession along with the defendant and the sale deed dated 14.06.1973 be declared as fraudulent, concocted and thereby, void – Suit was dismissed – In first appeal, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed – The High Court vide its impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate court decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs – However, insofar as the issue of limitation was concerned, the High Court differed with the First Appellate Court and came to the conclusion that it is Art.59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not Art.63 that would be applicable to the facts of the matter – Correctness: Held: 1. As per the dictum in Prem Singh, this Court, in order to ascertain whether Art.65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the present factual scenario, has to first determine whether the fraud was alleged as regards the contents of the sale deed dated 14.06.1973 or the character of such sale deed – Both the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court have arrived at the finding that the plaintiff had never executed the said sale * Author 826 [2025] 9 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports deed in the first place as it was proved that it was not her thumb impression that was affixed therein – Therefore, this finding goes to the character of the sale deed and thereby, renders it void/void ab initio – Hence, as per this decision, there remained no reason for the plaintiff to seek for its cancellation – The original sale deed also was not produced before the Trial Court by the defendants in order to rebut the doubt cast upon the veracity of the said sale deed – Consequently, Art. 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would find no application to the case in hand. [Para 31] 2. The averment of the plaintiff in the plaint, that she had not received the sale consideration, had not been otherwise proven as false – In such circumstances as well, i.e., in the absence of the sale consideration being tendered, the sale deed would be void and the plaintiff would not be required to seek its cancellation. Therefore, Art.59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be said to be applicable to the present facts. [Para 38] 3. The High Court could be said to have committed an error insofar as observing that it is Art.59 and not Art. 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which would apply to the case in hand – However, irrespective of the question of which Article of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable to the suit instituted by the present plaintiff, the suit could be said to have been filed within limitation – Therefore, apart from clarifying the correct position of law, there is no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion that the High Court arrived at as far as the maintainability of the suit on the aspect of limitation is concerned. [Para 40] Case Law Cited Prem Singh v. Birbal [2006] Supp. 1 SCR 692 : (2006) 5 SCC 353; Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892 – relied on. State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar [2000] 2 SCR 134 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 522; Bhim Singhji v. Union of India [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 862 : (1981) 1 SCC 166; Kewal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar and Others [2021] 11 SCR 588 : (2022) 18 SCC 489 – referred to. List of Acts Limitation Act, 1963. [2025] 9 S.C.R. 827 Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through LRs. Goran v. Jagan Devi & Ors. List of Keywords Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963; Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963; Permanent injunction; Absence of the sale consideration; Sale deed; Possession of property. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11795 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2018 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 2930
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.