2025 Supreme(SC) 697

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Rajeev Gupta and Others – Appellants
Versus
Prashant Garg and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11061 of 2024 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 2998 of 2022]
Decided On : 23-04-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Period of limitation – If cause of action to sue means accrual of right for an actionable claim, it is the moment from which such right first accrues that clock of limitation would start ticking – Though dominus litus, suitor cannot pick and choose time for approaching court.
(2) Lis Pendens – Section 52 of T.P. Act does not ipso facto render a sale transaction as inoperative, it merely subjects it to outcome of pending proceedings.
(3) Proof of Will – Requirement of proof of a Will in accordance with Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 is not done away with, even if Will is not disputed by opposite party.

Headnote:

(A) Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58 – Period of limitation – If cause of action to sue means accrual of right for an actionable claim, it is the moment from which such right first accrues that clock of limitation would start ticking – Even though cause of action for instituting a suit might arise on varied occasions and/or at different times, what is material and assumes relevance for computing period of limitation under Article 58 is the date when right to sue first accrues to aggrieved suitor – Though dominus litus, suitor cannot pick and choose time for approaching court – Period of limitation in terms of Article 58 being three years, prescribed period has to be counted from that date of right to sue first accruing and suit, if not instituted within three years therefrom, would become barred by time – Any suit seeking cancellation of a particular instrument as void or voidable would be governed by Article 59 and has to be instituted within three years from date suitor could be said to have first derived knowledge of fact of such an instrument (which, according to him, is void or voidable) coming into existence – Word “first” in Article 59 would ordinarily have same connotation as in Article 58. (Paras 30 and 31)

(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 31 and 38 – Suit for cancellation of sale deeds, recovery of possession and injunction – Execution of sale deeds was followed by registration as required by law – After civil suit failed on the ground of limitation, relief of declaration was belatedly sought to be inserted in plaint in course of first appeal – With execution of sale deeds, subsequently registered, this was the moment when right to sue first accrued to plaintiffs – Conduct of plaintiffs does throw light on how they juggled to overcome bar of limitation by seeking a decree for cancellation of sale deeds, which they sought to abandon midway by applying for amendment; thereafter, again they made attempt for insertion of prayer for declaration, also by way of amendment at appellate stage, which did not ultimately fructify – Civil suit of plaintiffs having been instituted in 2003, it was hopelessly barred by limitation and Section 3 of Limitation Act essentially entails its dismissal – Trial court was right in dismissing suit, on the ground of limitation. (Paras 33, 34, 35, 36 and 68)

(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Lis Pendens – Section 52 of T.P. Act does not ipso facto render a sale transaction as inoperative, it merely subjects it to outcome of pending proceedings – Effect of doctrine of lis pendens, which Section 52 of T.P. Act embodies, is not to annul all voluntary transfers effected by a party to suit but only to render it subservient to rights of parties thereto under decree or order that court may make in the suit – Transfer, subject to result of suit, could remain valid – There being no proof that appellants had knowledge of injunction order, transaction could not have been declared void ab initio – This is a case which falls within exceptions laid down under Section 52 of T.P. Act, i.e. non-applicability of the provision to collusive suits – Appellants would have to be held to be bona fide purchaser for value and entitled to benefit of Section 41 of T.P. Act. (Paras 41, 42 and 43)

(D) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Proof of Will – Requirement of proof of a Will in accordance with Section 68 is not done away with, even if Will is not disputed by opposite party – Where original documents are not produced without a plausible reason and factual foundation for laying secondary evidence not established it is not permissible for court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. (Paras 48 and 55)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal, by special leave, is at instance of second to fifth defendants [appellants] in a suit for cancellation of sale deeds, recovery of possession and injunction. Appellants mount a challenge to judgment and decree dated 21st September, 2021 of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing their second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In such appeal, first appellate judgment and decree was under challenge which reversed decree of the trial court of dismissal of the civil suit instituted by the respondent.

Findings of Court:

High Court, in exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction, did not fare better. In fact, application of judicial mind to substantial questions of law arising for decision on second appeal is conspicuous by its absence.

Result : Civil Appeal allowed.