SMT. RAMTI DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 20-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA, M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. RAMTI DEVI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
OCTOBER 20, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963-Article 59 of Schedule-Suit for declara-
tion-Sale deed duly executed being registered document-Plaintiff seeking to 
have sale-Deed avoided or cancelled-Limitation begins to run from the date 
on which sale deed was executed and registered. . 
A 
B 
c 
The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that she was the absolute 
owner and wa~ in possession of the house. She claimed to have purchased 
the property under a registered sale deed, and that 'R' bad no right, title 
or interest to alienate the property by the sale deed dated January 29, 1947 D 
which was said to have been executed to stifle the prosecution intended to 
be lodged against him. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the 
High Court confirmed it. This appeal by special leave has been filed 
against the judgment of the High Court. 
E 
In this appeal, the question that arose is whether the snit was filed 
within limitation. It was admitted that the plaintiff had knowledge of the 
execution and registration of the sale deed on Jan. 29, 1947. Tue· present 
snit was filed on July 30, 1966. The appellant contended that Article 113 
of the Limitation Act, 1963, is the relevant Article and the limitation does 
not begin to run as the sale deed document is void, it being executed to· F 
stifle the prosecution, and that since the appellant having been remained 
in possession, the only declaration that could be sought and obtained was 
that she was the owner and that the document does not bind the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The recitals of the documents would show that the sale deed 
was executed for valuable consideration to discharge pre-existing debts 
and it is a registered document. Apart from the prohibition under Section 
92 of the Evidence Act to adduce oral evidence to contradict the terms of 
G 
the recital therein, no issue in this behalf on the voidity of the sale deed H 
693 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
or its binding nature was raised nor a Onding recorded that the sale deed 
is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Pleading itself is not suffi-
cient. Since the appellant is seeking to have the document avoided or 
cancelled, necessarily a declaration has to be given by the Court in that 
behalf. Until the document is avoidfd or cancelled by proper declaration, 
B 
the duly registered document remains valid and binds the parties. So the 
suit necessarily has to be laid within three years from the date when the 
cause of action arose. Since the cause of action had arisen on Jan. 29, 1947, 
the date on which the sale deed was executed and the registered and the 
suit was filed on July 30, 1966, the suit is barred by limitation. [695-D-F) 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 522 of 
1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.78 of the Delhi High Court 
in R.F.A. No. ~9 of 1978. 
D 
V.M. Tarkunde and M.V. Goswami for the Appellant. 
E 
F 
J.D. Jain,, Mrs. Indra Sawhney, Mrs. Sushma Suri, (N.P.) and Ms. A. 
Subhashini for the Respondent. 
The folloWing Order of the Court was delivered: 
This app<;al by special leave arises against the judgment and decree 
of the Delhi Hi~ Court in R.F.A. No. 59 of 1978 dated February 26, 1979. 
The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for declaration that she is the absolute 
owner and is in possession of the house bearing old Municipal No. 5925 
and new Municipal No. 4477, Ward No. XI, situated at plot No. 7/18, Darya 
Ganj, Delhi. She claimed to have purchased the property from one 
Kaushalya Devi under a sale deed dated May 11, 1946 registered on May 
29, 1946 and th,ereby she is said to be the owner. Shri Ratti Ram had no 
right title or int~rest to alienate the property by the sale deed dated January 
29, 1947 which was said to have been executed to stifle the prosecution 
G intended to be lodged against him. The trial court dismissed the suit. On 
appeal, the High Court confirmed it. 
The ques\ion is whether the suit is within limitation. In the evidence, 
it was admitted that she had knowledge of the execution and registration 
of the sale-deed on January 29, 1947. Initially a suit was filed in 1959 but 
H was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit. Admittedly, the 
RAMTI DEVI v. U.0.1. 
695 
present suit was filed on July 30, 1966. The question, therefore, i< whether A 
the suit is wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.