The court emphasized the importance of legal necessity and the limitation period for filing a suit for declaration of a void sale deed.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 25-9-1998 in Civil Appeal No. 523 of 1986 allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit of appellants.

( 2 ) THE present appellants filed the suit No. 109 of 1985 for the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by Nava Ratan Lal regarding the disputed house No. 473-A, Shahganj, Allahabad in favour of Ghasi Ram Chaurasiya, respondent No. 3 and subsequent sale deeds executed by Ghasi Ram in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 are void and not binding upon the appellants.

( 3 ) IN brief, the appellants pleaded in the plaint that the house in dispute was acquired by Sri Parmeshwar Dayal grand father of Nava Ratan Lal and it was ancestral property in the hands of Nava Ratan Lal, who was defendant No. 1 to suit, but died during the pendency of the suit in the year 1997 and therefore was not impleaded as party in this appeal. The appellants are widow, sons and daughters of Nava Ratan Lal. It was further alleged in the plaint that the sale deed was obtained by fraud from Nava Ratan Lal. It was obtained without consideration. That in fact there was only loan transaction, but the sale deed was got executed by fraud. It was further pleaded that Nava Ratan Lal had no legal necessity to execute the sale deed. The appellants are co-sharers in the house in dispute and have acquired right of ownership of the same by birth, therefore the sale deed executed by Nava Ratan Lal was not binding on the appellants. That subsequent sale deed executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 was without any authority hence void.

( 4 ) THE respondents contested the suit. They pleaded that the sale deed was executed by Nava Ratan Lal out of his own free-will. That he was in legal necessity. He was in need of money to meet his daily needs, as he had no source of income. That thereafter the house was given to Nava Ratan Lal by Ghasi Ram on rent of Rs. 126. 00 per month. An agreement was also executed by him. It was further pleaded that respondents No. 1 and 2 are bona fide purchasers from respondent No. 3 for value without notice. That the suit was barred by time and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) IN this case, the defendants/respondents took several adjournments. Ultimately, the suit was decreed by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the appellants under Order 17, Rule 3 CPC. The respondents, therefore, moved application for restoration as well as preferred the First Appeal No. 533 of 1986 against the decree. The restoration application of the respondents was rejected. Against that order, the respondents preferred First Appeal No. 307 of 1987.

( 6 ) APPEAL No. 533 of 1986 has been allowed by the lower Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 25-9-1998. The First Appeal No. 307 of 1987 was dismissed as being infructuous.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of lower Court the appellants have preferred this Second Appeal.

( 8 ) THIS Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sale deed in favour of Ghasi Ram being declared void, was that finding not binding on the transferees also?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case when the suit was for declaration of the sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 void would the provisions of the Limitation Act be applicable and the plaintiffs could be non-suited on this ground alone?

( 9 ) I have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S. K. Verma assisted by Sri Siddharth for respondents No. 1 and 2 and perused the entire record. None has appeared for respondent No. 3 despite of sufficient service.

( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court held that sale deed in favour of Ghasi Ram was void and Ghasi Ram had not filed appeal before lower Appellate Court and therefore said finding beco