Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1098
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
T.C. Balakrishnan Nair (Died), S/o. Chellappan Pillai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Biju Ramesh, S/o. Ramesan G. & Ors. - Respondents
RFA Nos. 127, 172 of 2010
Decided On : 26-03-2025
For the Appellants : Sri. R.S. Kalkura, Sri. M. Ajay Irumpanam, Sri. Harish Gopinath, Smt. KVP. Jayalekshmy, Sri. M.S. Kalesh, Sri. V. Vinay Menon, Sri. L. Mohanan, Smt. Ligey Antony.
For the Respondents: Smt. Indulekha Joseph, Sri. L. Mohanan, Sri. M.R. Anandakuttan, Smt. Ligey Antony, Sri. Neeraj Narayan, Sri. V.G. Arun, Sri. R.S. Madhu, Smt. M.A. Zohra, V. Jaya Ragi, R. Harikrishnan (Kambisseril), Mahesh Anandakuttan, Sri. K.T. Shyamkumar, Shri. Harish R. Menon.
IMPORTANT POINT
The limitation period for filing a suit to set aside a document begins from the date of its execution, and the executant cannot claim ignorance of the document.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 59 - Appeal against dismissal of suit to declare sale deed as sham - Suit dismissed as barred by limitation - Plaintiff executed sale deed in favor of defendant, claiming it was a security for loan - Suit filed after three years from execution of deed - Court held that knowledge of execution is from the date of the document, confirming trial court's finding. (Paras 10 , 14 , 16 , 18 )
(B) Limitation - The period for filing a suit to set aside a document begins when the facts entitling the plaintiff to the relief first become known - The executant cannot claim ignorance of the document's execution. (Paras 14 , 15 )
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff executed a sale deed as security for a loan, later claiming it was a sham after repayment. The trial court found the suit barred by limitation as it was filed years after the deed's execution.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's dismissal of the suit was justified as it was filed beyond the limitation period.
Issues: Whether the trial court's finding on limitation was justified? Whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief regarding the sale deed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the limitation period begins from the date of knowledge of the document's execution, emphasizing the executant's responsibility for knowledge.
Result: R.F.A. No.127/2010 and R.F.A. No.172/2010 are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R.F.A. No.127 of 2010 has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.156/2003 on the files of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, underSection 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the decree and judgment in the above case dated 28.10.2009, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff to declare Ext.A1 sale deed No.2634/1997 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant, as a sham document, was dismissed. The respondents herein are defendants in the above suit.
2. R.F.A. No.172 of 2010 is also filed challenging the decree and judgment in O.S. No.156/2003, at the instance of defendants 4, 6 and 7, arraying the plaintiff and other defendants as the respondents.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 and the learned counsel counsel appearing for additional respondents 8 to 10 in R.F.A. No.127 of 2010. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.
4. Even though, service is not complete in R.F.A. No.172/2010, parties to the lis are substantially served or represented in R.F.A. No.127/2010. Hence, R.F.A. No.172/2010 can also be heard along with R.F.A. No.127/2010.
5. Parties in these appeals shall be referred with reference to their status before the trial court.
6. Short facts:- The case put up by the plaintiff before the trial court is that, the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property. When he borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the 1st defendant, though initially no document was executed as security, later when the 1st defendant insisted to execute documents to evidence the said transaction, Ext.A1 sale deed dated 04.08.1997 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant, on understanding that, as and when the amount would be repaid with interest, the 1st defendant would execute conveyance at the cost of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case further is that, he repaid the amount on 05.01.1999. Inspite of receipt of money, the 1st defendant did not reconvey the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 07.10.1997, the plaintiff executed Ext.A8 settlement deed in favour of his daughter Sandhya Kumari, who is the additional 4th defendant herein and now the plaint schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the additional 4th defendant. Therefore, the suit has been Ext.A1 document as a sham document.
7. The 1st defendant filed written statement and resisted the suit asserting title and possession over the plaint schedule property on the strength of Ext.A1 and also on the submission that the suit is barred by limitation.
8. Defendants 2 and 3 filed written statement supporting the contentions raised by the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant also filed written statement, asserting execution of Ext.A18 Rectification deed by the plaintiff as on 05.08.2002. The 5th defendant was set ex-parte. The 6th defendant filed written statement, asserting that, at present, the plaint schedule property is in the custody of the 6th defendant. The 7th defendant supporting the contentions raised by the plaintiff.
9. The trial court ventured the matter, after raising necessary issues. PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.A1 to A21 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.B1 to B31 were marked on the side the the defendants. Exts.X1 to X4 were also marked as third party exhibits.
10. Finally, the trial court after evaluating the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
11. While assailing the verdict of the trial court, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, Ext.A1 sale deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant to evidence the transaction between the plaintiff and 1st defendant, on the condition that, when the amount would be repaid, the 1st defendant would reconvey the property to the plaintiff. Though the amount was repaid by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant did not rec
