Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan 2026 INSC 350 - Voidable Transaction- Delay Condonation
Voidable Transaction- The repudiation of a voidable transaction need not necessarily be in a suit instituted to set it aside and could as well be, by way of an unequivocal conduct. (Para 14)
Limitation - Delay condonation cannot be an act of generosity defeating the cause of substantial justice and causing prejudice to the opposite party. (Para 17)
Case Info
Case Details
Case name: Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 350
Coram:
- Justice Sanjay Kumar
- Justice K. Vinod Chandran (author of the judgment)
Judgment date: 10 April 2026 (NEW DELHI; APRIL 10, 2026.)
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (especially Section 88; proceedings before Revenue Court under the Act of 1955)
- General Rules (Civil), 1986 (Rule 143 – directory, not mandatory)
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (Section 8(2) – transfer of minor’s property without court’s permission)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 114(g) and 103 – adverse inference and burden of proof, as discussed through case law)
Caselaws and Citations
- K.S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2149
- Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489
- Gurnam Singh v. Surjit Singh, (1975) 4 SCC 404
- Ajay Kumar D. Amin v. Air France, (2016) 12 SCC 566
These are relied upon for principles on repudiation of voidable transactions, delay condonation standards, and drawing adverse inference when best evidence is withheld.
Three‑Sentence Summary
The Supreme Court held that the defendant had duly contested the 1965 revenue suit, failed to produce the unregistered sale deed she relied on, and sought to challenge the 1975 declaratory decree after an inordinate, unjustified delay of 31 years. The Court found the plea of fraud to be an improved and unsubstantiated allegation, noted that the plaintiff’s khatedari rights and succession were properly recognized, and that the minor’s purported sale of land was itself hit by Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Accordingly, it set aside the remand orders of the revenue and High Court authorities and restored the original 1975 decree in favour of Hari Ram.