Shanti Devi (D) v. Jagan Devi 2025 INSC 1105 - Limitation Act
Limitation Act 1963 - Article 59,65 - In this case, the First Appellate Court applied Article 65 stating that the 12-year period for possession based on title applied, and the suit was filed within that period. The High Court affirmed the First Appellate Court's decision to decree the suit but disagreed on the applicable limitation article, stating that Article 59, which allows for a three-year period from the date of knowledge, should apply - In appeal, SC observed: The First Appellate Court had rightly observed that the plaintiff had claimed the relief of joint possession. It had also arrived at the finding that the transaction in question was void. To put it simply, in the eyes of the law, the plaintiff could not be said to have executed the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the date of knowledge that the possession of the defendant was adverse to that of the plaintiff. Even if the date of execution of the sale deed, i.e., 14.06.1973 is considered, the suit having been filed on 28.02.1984, i.e., almost 11 years later, could be said to be well within limitation as stipulated under Article 65. (Para 39)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - The sale of an immovable property would have to be for a price and such a payment of price is essential, even if it is payable in the future. If a sale deed is executed without the payment of price, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law, specifically under Section 54 - Such a sale without consideration would be void and would not affect the transfer of the immovable property. (Para 34)
Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 31,34 - Void Documents - A document that is void need not be challenged by seeking a declaration as the said pleas can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings. (Para 34) 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 (Para 38) - A person who is not a party to an instrument would not be obliged in law to seek its cancellation. (Para 30)
Questions & Answers
1. What is the central legal dispute in the case of Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi?
The core legal issue revolves around the validity of a sale deed dated June 14, 1973, and whether the lawsuit challenging it was filed within the legal time limit (limitation period). The plaintiffs (Jagan Devi & Ors.) claimed the sale deed was fraudulent and void, arguing they were still co-owners in possession of the land. The defendants (Shanti Devi & LRS.) asserted the sale deed was validly executed and that the plaintiffs' suit was time-barred.
2. What was the initial claim made by the plaintiffs in their civil suit?
The plaintiffs initially filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with their one-third share of agricultural land. Alternatively, they sought joint possession and requested that the sale deed dated June 14, 1973, be declared fraudulent, concocted, and void with respect to their share of the land. They claimed they never executed the sale deed, received no consideration, and only became aware of the fraudulent transaction in February 1984.
3. How did the lower courts rule on the validity of the sale deed and the issue of limitation?
The Trial Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, finding against them on all issues, including the validity of the sale deed and limitation. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. It found that the transaction was void because the plaintiff (Risali) never executed the sale deed. On the question of limitation, the First Appellate Court applied Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, stating that the 12-year period for possession based on title applied, and the suit was filed within that period. The High Court affirmed the First Appellate Court's decision to decree the suit but disagreed on the applicable limitation article, stating that Article 59, which allows for a three-year period from the date of knowledge, should apply. Despite this difference, the High Court still found the suit to be within time based on the "date of knowledge" provision in Article 59.
4. What is the key distinction between Article 59 and Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as discussed in this case?
Article 59 sets a three-year limitation period for suits seeking to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree, or for rescission of a contract, starting from when the facts entitling the plaintiff to such action become known to them. This article primarily applies to "voidable" transactions, meaning those that are initially valid but can be annulled.
Article 65 sets a twelve-year limitation period for suits for possession of immovable property based on title, starting from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. This article applies to "void" or "void ab initio" transactions, which are considered non-existent in the eyes of the law from the beginning and do not require formal cancellation.
5. When is it unnecessary for a plaintiff to seek cancellation of a sale deed?
It is unnecessary for a plaintiff to seek cancellation of a sale deed when the instrument is considered "void ab initio" (void from the beginning) or a "nullity." This occurs in situations such as:
- Fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document: If the plaintiff was deceived about the very nature of the document they were signing.
- Non-execution by the owner: If the owner never actually executed the sale deed, for example, due to impersonation.
- Lack of consideration: If the sale deed was executed without the payment of a price, it is not a "sale" in the eyes of the law and is considered void.
In these instances, the document has no legal effect, and the plaintiff can simply seek possession based on their original title, treating the void document as non-existent.
6. What was the Supreme Court's final decision regarding the applicable limitation period and the outcome of the appeal?
The Supreme Court clarified that while the High Court erred in applying Article 59 instead of Article 65, the ultimate conclusion that the suit was within the limitation period was correct. The Court emphasized that the sale deed was proven to be void due to non-execution by the plaintiff and lack of consideration. Therefore, Article 65, with its 12-year limitation period for possession based on title, was the correct article to apply. Since the suit was filed within 11 years of the sale deed's execution, it was well within time under Article 65. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, while correcting the legal reasoning regarding the Limitation Act.
7. How does the concept of "void" versus "voidable" transactions impact the requirement for a declaration or cancellation?
The distinction between "void" and "voidable" is crucial. A voidable transaction is initially valid but can be set aside by one of the parties due to factors like fraud, coercion, or undue influence regarding its contents. For such transactions, a formal suit for cancellation or declaration under Article 59 (three years from knowledge) is generally required.
A void transaction, on the other hand, is considered a nullity from its inception, meaning it has no legal effect whatsoever. This often occurs when there is a fundamental defect, such as impersonation, lack of proper execution, or absence of consideration. For void transactions, a separate declaration or cancellation is not strictly necessary, as the document can be ignored. A suit for possession based on title, governed by Article 65 (twelve years from adverse possession), can be filed, and the invalidity of the document can be argued collaterally.
8. What evidence supported the plaintiff's claim that the sale deed was fraudulent and void?
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs and accepted by the First Appellate Court and High Court included:
- Expert testimony: A handwriting expert compared thumb impressions, concluding that the thumb impression on the disputed sale deed was not that of the plaintiff (Rasali).
- Defendant's inconsistent testimony: The defendant (Shanti Devi) claimed to know Rasali but could not identify her in cross-examination.
- Lack of independent witnesses: The defendant's husband, who allegedly paid part of the consideration, did not testify. One attesting witness was the defendant's brother, whose testimony was deemed partial, and another witness (Sarpanch) had died.
- Failure to produce original documents: The defendant stated the original sale deed was misplaced and also failed to produce a prior agreement to sell.
- Lack of consideration: The plaintiff averred she never received any sale consideration, and the defendant failed to provide evidence of both the initial payment and the payment made at registration.
This combination of evidence strongly indicated that Rasali never executed the sale deed and received no payment, rendering the transaction void.
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Shanti Devi (since deceased) v. Jagan Devi & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1105
Coram
- Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J. and R. Mahadevan, J.
Judgment Date
- Date: 12th September, 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
The judgment refers to several Supreme Court decisions and other authorities:
- State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar2000 SCC OnLine SC 522
- Bhim Singhji v. Union of India(1981) 1 SCC 186
- Ajudh Raj v. Moti(1991) 3 SCC 136
- Prem Singh v. Birbal(2006) 5 SCC 353
- Unni v. Kunchi AmmaILR (1891) 14 Mad 26
- Sheo Shankar Gir v. Ram Shewak ChowdhriILR (1897) 24 Cal 77
- Ningawwa v. Byrappa(1968) 2 SCR 797 : AIR 1968 SC 956
- Bijoy Gopal Mukerji v. Krishna Mahishi Debi1907 SCC OnLine PC 1
- Vellayya Konar (Died) v. Ramaswami Konar1939 SCC OnLine Mad 149
- Kewal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar and Others(2022) 18 SCC 489
- Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman2025 SCC OnLine SC 892
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Limitation Act, 1963
- Article 59: To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract (3 years limitation)
- Article 65: For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title (12 years limitation)
- Article 58, Article 91 (mentioned in context of limitation)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- Section 54: Definition and requirements of “Sale” of immovable property
- Punjab Land Revenue Act
- Section 44: Presumption of truth regarding mutation
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Section 35-A: Special costs
