Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. Goran – Appellant
Versus
Jagan Devi & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11795 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 24821 of 2018)
Decided On : 12-09-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a dispute over land ownership and the validity of a sale deed alleged to be fraudulent and void ab initio, with the court ultimately finding that the sale deed was not executed by the plaintiff and was therefore void (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of a share in the land, asserting that the sale deed was forged through impersonation and collusion, and that she never received any sale consideration (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The defendant argued that the sale deed was validly executed, that the plaintiff was present during registration, and that the transaction was legal and supported by consideration, thus challenging the claim that the deed was fraudulent (!) (!) (!) .
The courts found significant evidence indicating that the plaintiff did not execute the sale deed, including discrepancies in thumb impressions and the absence of her signature, leading to the conclusion that the deed was void ab initio (!) (!) (!) .
The question of limitation was central, with the courts analyzing whether Article 59 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act applied. The courts ultimately held that since the sale deed was void ab initio, the suit for possession based on title was governed by Article 65, with a limitation period of 12 years, and that the suit was filed within this period (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that a transaction executed without consideration or through fraud, impersonation, or collusion, and found to be void ab initio, does not require a separate declaration of nullity for the purpose of limitation; such documents are treated as non-existent in law (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate courts, including the High Court, affirmed the findings that the sale deed was not executed by the plaintiff and that it was a null and void transaction, thus reinforcing that the plaintiff's claim to possession based on her ownership rights was valid and within the limitation period (!) (!) (!) .
The legal principle established is that a person not a party to an instrument is not obligated to seek its cancellation but may instead assert that the instrument is invalid or void as against him, especially when it is executed fraudulently or without authority (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The case underscores that a sale deed lacking consideration or executed through fraudulent means is a nullity, and such transactions do not affect the title or rights of the true owner, who can maintain a suit for possession within the applicable limitation period (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the courts dismissed the appeal, confirming that the suit was filed within the permissible limitation period and that the sale deed was invalid, thus upholding the plaintiff’s rights in the land (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the case background (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. plaintiffs' allegations and suit details (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. defendant’s arguments against plaintiffs (Para 18 , 19 , 22) |
| 4. court's interpretation of the limitation act (Para 24 , 25 , 27) |
| 5. character of sale deed and its implications (Para 26 , 28 , 30) |
| 6. conclusion and disposition of case (Para 29 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 22.02.2018 in the Regular Second Appeal No. 2930 of 1996 by which the second appeal filed by the appellant-herein (original defendant) against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.1996 arising from Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1991 passed by the First Appellate court, came to be dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under.
4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant-herein shall be referred to as the original defendant and the respondents-herein shall be referred to as the original plaintiffs.
5. The plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 782 of 1984 in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession to the extent of one-third share in the agricultural land admeasuring 31 kanals 4 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Bisar Akbarpur, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon. In the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed that they be put in joint possession along with the defendant and the sale deed dated 14.06.1973 purported to have been executed by Ram Saran s/o Bhambar and the plaintiff in favor of the defendant be declared as fraudulent, concocted and thereby, void insofar as the share of the plaintiff is concerned.
6. The plaint of Civil Suit No. 782 of 1984 reads thus:
2. That the defendant wrongly claims herself to be the purchaser of the suit land referred to above from one Ram Saran s/o Bhambar on the basis of a fraudulent and concocted sale deed alleged to have been executed on 14.06.1973. The alleged sale deed dated 14.6.73 is total fraudulent, illegal and void and cannot defeat the legal rights and share of the plaintiff in the suit land on the following grounds:-
(a) That the plaintiff never executed on registered sale deed dated 14.6. 73 or of any other date in favor of the defendant and she is still the co-owner in possession to the extent of her share in the land.
(b) That it seems that the defendant must have got executed and registered the alleged sale deed in her favor by making some impersonation in collusion with the other vendor and witnesses and must have played a fraud on the Sub-Registrar to derive wrongful gain for her personal benefit.
(c) That the plaintiff never got any sale consideration of the alleged sale deed and she came to know about this fraudulent transaction only when he came to the village mourn the death of Ram Saran and heard that her land is going to be sold by the defendant without any right in it.
(d) That the alleged sale deed if made by any other person by making impersonation or otherwise, the same does not effect the rights of the plaintiff in the land in suit.
3. That the plaintiff is owner in possession her 1/3rd share in the land and is entitled to file suit for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining her from interfering with the possession and ownership of the plaintiff in the suit land in any manner. In the alternative, if it is found and held that that defendant is in possession of the whole land the
A sale deed is void if no consideration was paid; registration does not validate it, and its improper registration does not confer title.
The court ruled that the plaintiff's suit was timely as she only discovered the fraudulent sale deed in October 2023, emphasizing that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law.
A suit filed to declare a sale deed null and void is barred by limitation if not filed within three years from the date of registration, and must disclose a valid cause of action.
The presumption of validity of registered documents requires specific fraud allegations to extend the limitation period, which were absent in this case, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
