The central legal point established in the judgment is that the starting point of limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the knowledge of the alleged fraud, and the court emphasized the relevance of this principle in determining the applicability of the limitation period in suits for cancellation of documents.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

RFA No. 332/2018 and C.M. Appl. No. 15540/2018 (for stay)

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 03.04.2018 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff as barred by time. The suit has been held as barred by time on the ground that the suit for cancellation of the impugned documents dated 17.09.1999 has been filed in July, 2017 i.e. beyond the period of three years limitation prescribed under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. A reading of the plaint shows that the appellant/plaintiff in the suit has prayed for cancellation of the subject documents dated 17.09.1999, being the Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, etc. whereby the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 is said to have been transferred the suit property by the appellant/plaintiff. The suit property being property bearing No. E-7, Hari Nagar, Part-II, Badarpur, New Delhi.

3. The appellant/plaintiff in the plaint has repeatedly pleaded that the documents dated 17.09.1999 are forged and fabricated documents. The appellant/plaintiff also pleads that the rent agreement alleged to have been executed in favour of her husband, is not valid because she never executed the documents dated 17.09.1999.

4. When a preliminary issue is decided, the contents of plaint have to be taken as correct. In the plaint, I do not find any statement that the appellant/plaintiff knew about the existence of the documents dated 17.09.1999, three years before the filing of the suit in July, 2017. The trial court has wrongly imputed knowledge to the appellant/plaintiff from the knowledge of the husband of the appellant/plaintiff in terms of a Legal Notice dated 04.10.2013 issued to the husband of the appellant/plaintiff, and reply of which was sent by the husband of the appellant/plaintiff on 14.10.2013. It is pertinent to note that it is a disputed question of fact as to whether contents of the Notice dated 04.10.2013 were brought to the notice of the appellant/plaintiff by her husband, and this factual aspect can only be decided after trial.

5. The trial court has also wrongly observed that the appellant/plaintiff is deemed to have notice of the contents of the documents dated 17.09.1999 because she deposed as a witness in an eviction case filed by the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 for non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, but it is seen that the deposition which is made by the appellant/plaintiff is only on 10.02.2016, so if 10.02.2016 is taken as the date of knowledge of the impugned documents dated 17.09.1999, then the period of three years will only commence on 10.02.2016 and will thus end on 10.02.2019, whereas the subject suit has been filed in July, 2017. It is further observed that if we take the date of affirmation of the affidavit by way of evidence of the appellant/plaintiff in the earlier eviction suit filed against the husband of the appellant/plaintiff, the attestation is of December, 2015, and consequently limitation period for filing of the suit would only expire in December, 2018, whereas the subject suit has been filed in July, 2017.

6. In law, once documents are alleged by the appellant/plaintiff to be forged and fabricated documents, such a plea would ordinarily include challenge to the documents on the ground that the contents of the documents are not known to the appellant/plaintiff. Once the contents of the documents are not known, then the period of limitation can only start against the appellant/plaintiff to question the documents when the contents of the documents are known to her. This is clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Prem Singh and Others v. Birbal and Others (2006) 5 SCC 353 that a voidable document is a document which is sought to be cancelled under Article 59 of th