Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J
T.C.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ((died)) S/o.chellappan PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
BIJU RAMESH S/o RAMESAN G. – Respondent
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.
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.
Suit for declaration and recovery of possession - Decreed - Suit for declaration and recovery of possession on strength of title is maintainable, still it is duty of court to peruse evidence regardin....
Allegations of fraud prevent the rejection of a plaint under limitation laws, necessitating full trial for claims based on such allegations.
Suit challenging settlement deed barred by limitation under Articles 58/65 after 20 years; fraud unproven in fiduciary context.
Registered sale deed presumed valid; sham claim barred by limitation if not filed timely.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit challenging a sale deed must be filed within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, and suppression of material facts ....
A suit for declaration is maintainable if the cause of action arises after discovery of fraudulent transactions, thus extending the limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for non-disclosure of cause of action and being barred by limitation if claims are based on prior known events.
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
