IMPORTANT POINT
Article 59 Limitation Act would be attracted when coercion, undue influence, misappropriation or fraud which plaintiff asserts is required to be proved and would not apply only to instruments which are presumptively invalid.

Headnote:Limitation Act, 1963—Article 59—Whether provision would be attracted in a suit for setting aside a sale deed allegedly got executed by fraud and misrepresentation? Yes—Suit filed on 24-9-1979 to cancel the sale deed executed on 1-1-1961 when plaintiff was a minor aged about 12 years and by playing fraud—Trial Court dismissed suit holding it barred by limitation—1st appellate Court decreed suit holding that sale deed was got executed by playing fraud on plaintiff who was minor and sale deed being void ab-initio, limitation of three years from date of attaining majority would not be applicable—High Court up held the view in second appeal—Appeal—Art. 59 would be attracted when coercion, undue influence, misappropriation or fraud which plaintiff asserts was required to be proved—Provision would not apply only to instruments which were presumptively invalid — Fraudulent misrepresentation as regards character of a document is void by fraudulent misrepresentation as regards contents of a document is voidable—A regd. document prima facie would be valid in law and onus would be on person to rebut the presumption—Respondent had not been able to rebut said presumption—Trial Court was right to hold suit barred by limitation and its decree was liable to be restored.
       Held : Once; however, a suit is filed by a plaintiff for cancellation of a transaction, it would be governed by Article 59. Even if Article 59 is not attracted, the residuary Article would be. Article 59 would be attracted when coercion, undue influence, misappropriation or fraud which the plaintiff asserts is required to be proved. Article 59 would apply to the case of such instruments. It would, therefore, apply where a document is prima facie valid. It would not apply only to instruments which are presumptively invalid. [See Unni & Anr. vs. Kunchi Amma & Ors. (1891) ILR XIV Mad. 26) and Sheo Shankar Gir vs. Ram Shewak Chowdhri & Ors. [(1897) ILR XXIV Cal. 77]. It is not in dispute that by reason of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the scope has been enlarged from old Article 91 of 1908 Act. By reason of Article 59, the provisions contained in Articles 91 and 114 of 1908 Act had been combined. If the plaintiff is in possession of a property, he may file a suit for declaration that the deed is not binding upon him but if he is not in possession thereof, even under a void transaction, the right by way of adverse possession may be claimed. Thus, it is not correct to contend that the provisions of the Limitation Act would have no application at all in the event the transaction is held to be void. Respondent No. 1 has not alleged that fraudulent misrepresentation was made to him as regards the character of the document. According to him, there had been a fraudulent misrepresentation as regards its contents. In Ningawwa vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabnar & Ors. [AIR 1968 SC 956], this Court held that the fraudulent misrepresentation as regards character of a document is void but fraudulent mispresentation as regards contents of a document is voidable(Paras 16 to 21)
       There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent No. 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption. If a deed was executed by the plaintiff when he was a minor and it was void, he had two options to file a suit to get the property purportedly conveyed thereunder. He could either file the suit within 12 years of the deed or within 3 years of attaining majority. Here, the plaintiff did not either sue within 12 years of the deed or within 3 years of attaining majority. Therefore, the suit was rightly held to be barred by limitation by the trial court. Since the lower Appellate Court and the High Court were not right in law in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation, the judgments and decrees of the lower Appellate Court and that of the High Court are liable to be set aside and dismissal of the suit by the trial court on the ground that it is barred by limitation is liable to be restored.(Paras 26 to 28)

Judgement Key Points

Jist: In a suit for declaration and partition claiming co-sharer status in suit land, plaintiff sought to cancel a 1961 sale deed (executed when allegedly a minor via fraud), filed in 1979. Trial court dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 59 Limitation Act. Appellate courts reversed, holding deed void ab initio (no limitation). Supreme Court restored trial court decree: Article 59 applies to suits canceling instruments on grounds like fraud (requiring proof), even if prima facie valid (registered deeds presumed valid; onus on plaintiff to rebut). Fraud as to contents = voidable (3-year limit from knowledge/attaining majority); not character (void). Plaintiff failed to sue within 12 years of deed or 3 years of majority; suit barred. [1000358980002][1000358980001] (!) [1000358980026][1000358980027]

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. Whether the provision of Article 59 of the Limitation Act would be attracted in a suit filed for setting aside a Deed of Sale, is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Civil Second Appeal No. 8 of 1998.

3. Respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration and partition of the land consisting of 19 bighas and 12 biswas claiming himself to be a co-sharer with the defendant. One Mihilal was the owner of the suit land comprising of different khasra numbers, situate in Village Akhoda, in the District of Bhind. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 alleging that his father Chhedilal had a share therein in addition to owner of another land in khasra No. 516, measuring 6 biswas. Chhdilal died in the year 1950. His wife also died soon thereafter. At the time of the death of his father, the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 was a minor. He started living with Appellant No. 4-Lal Bihari. He, allegedly, executed a deed of sale on 1.1.1961 in respect of khasra No. 516 measuring 6 biswas to Babu Singh and Tek Singh for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. His age in the Sale Deed was shown to be 26 years. Only on 17.8.1979, he allegedly, gathered the information that the land under khasra No. 516 was purported to have been sold by him to the aforementioned persons. He, thereafter, filed the suit on 24.9.1979. The Appellant herein pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The said suit of the Respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the trial court by a judgment and decree dated 29.4.1995 holding that the suit was barred by limitation. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff. The 1st Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 11.12.1997, held that the said Deed of Sale was got executed by playing fraud on the plaintiff who was a minor at the relevant point of time and the said Deed of Sale, thus, being void ab initio, the limitation of three years from the date of attaining of majority, as is provided for in Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would not be applicable in the instant case. A second appeal preferred by the Appellants herein was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 2.9.2002.

4. Mr. S.K. Gambhir, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, in support of this appeal, contended that :

i)Having regard to the fact that Respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit on 24.9.1979 for setting aside the Deed of Sale dated 1.12.1961, the same was clearly barred by limitation;

ii)The period of limitation for setting aside the said Deed of Sale, as contended by the plaintiff, did not start running from 22.8.1979, but from the date he attained majority;

iii)Even assuming that the findings of the learned Appellate Court were correct that the Respondent No. 1 was aged about 12 years in 1961 and he attained majority in the year 1969, he was required to file the suit within three years thereafter.

iv)The Appellate Court as also the High Court failed to take into consideration the documentary evidence which clearly established that Respondent No. 1 was a major on the date of execution of the said Deed of sale.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that

i)On the date of execution of the said deed of sale, Respondent No. 1 being a minor, Article 59 of the Limitation Act would have no application;

ii)When a transaction is void, as a suit can be filed at any time, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not attracted.

5. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Balvant N. Viswamitra & Ors. vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2004) 8 SCC 706].

6. The trial court, in view of the pleadings of the parties framed several issues. Issue No. 4 framed by the trial court reads as under :

“Whether suit is within the period of Limitation?”

7. The learned trial court found that on 1.12.1961, when the dee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 440

IMPORTANT POINTArticle 59 Limitation Act would be attracted when coercion, undue influence, misappropriation or fraud which plaintiff asserts is required to be proved and would not apply only to instruments which are presumptively invalid.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Article 59 Limitation Act would be attracted when coercion, undue influence, misappropriation or fraud which plaintiff asserts is required to be proved and would not apply only to instruments which are presumptively invalid.