Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Smt. Shazia Khan and Another – Appellants
Versus
Munazir Ali and Others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 2239 of 2022
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Section Order 7 Rule 11 – Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 – Section 17 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 59 –Appeal from original decree – Appellants have preferred present appeal against order lower appellate court setting aside order of trial Court by which trial Court has rejected plaint of Original Suit instituted by plaintiff respondent for cancellation of sale deed with respect to suit property on ground that suit is barred by limitation – Held, Apex Court while considering import of pleading in plaint of suit found that only bald averments have been made with regard to fraud and in such factual backdrop – Apex Court held that mere stating in plaint that fraud has been played is not enough – Allegation of fraud must be specifically averred in plain otherwise merely by using word fraud plaintiffs would try to get suits within limitation which otherwise may be barred by limitation – Suit was instituted on ground that sale deed has been got executed by fraud and misrepresentation and plaintiffs signed said documents believing or treating it as a joint venture agreement plaintiffs did not go through contents of said documents – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri A.K.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The defendants/appellants have preferred the present appeal against the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the lower appellate court setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 11.03.2019 by which the trial Court has rejected the plaint of Original Suit No. 59 of 2012 instituted by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 for cancellation of sale deed with respect to the suit property on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has instituted Original Suit No. 59 of 2012 praying for cancellation of the sale deed alleged to have been executed on 05.12.2006 with respect to the suit property. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 alleging that respondent no. 2 Araish Ali (defendant no. 2 in the suit) was the son of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 and appellant no. 1 Smt. Shazia Khan (defendant no. 1 in the suit) is the wife of respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the wife of respondent no. 2). Further allegation in the plaint is that respondent no. 4 (defendant no. 4 in the plaint) is the father of appellant no. 1.
4. The marriage of respondent no. 2, son of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1, was solemnized with appellant no. 1 on 30.04.2006. Thereafter appellant no. 1 started living as the wife of respondent no. 2 in the house of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1. It is further pleaded that appellant no. 1 has colluded with respondent no. 2 to usurp the property of the plaintiff/ respondent no. 1. To achieve the said object, the appellant no. 1 registered a false complaint against the wife and nephew (sister's son) of plaintiff/respondent no. 1 under the Dowry Prohibition Act on 30.11.2006. Pursuant to the FIR dated 30.11.2006 the nephew of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 was arrested and had to remain in jail.
5. It is further stated that respondent no. 4 in collusion with appellant no. 1 had agreed to withdraw the FIR on the condition that the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 transfer the house owned by him by way of a sale deed in favour of appellant no. 1. It was agreed that on the execution of sale deed, the FIR dated 05.12.2006 would be withdrawn.
6. Further case of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 is that because of the pressure tactics adopted by the appellant no. 1, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 had no option but to execute the sale deed because of the false criminal case registered against his wife and nephew by appellant no. 1 without getting any sale consideration with respect to the house owned by him. It is stated that he executed the sale deed only in respect to the house. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has further stated that he had no knowledge about the execution of the sale deed date 05.12.2006 with respect to the agricultural land described in the plaint, which was got executed by appellant no. 1 by playing fraud.
7. It is the specific case of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in the plaint that he has not executed any sale deed in respect of the agricultural land which is the suit property, nor he has received any sale consideration as alleged in the said sale deed. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in Para-8 of the plaint has categorically stated that the plaintiff/ respondent no. 1 was forced to execute the sale deed of the house and when he reached the Court for the execution of the sale deed, the sale deed was not read over to him and wherever he was asked to put his signature, he had put his signature as he was told that the papers are related to the sale deed in respect of the house.
8. It is the further case of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 that the consolidation proceeding was undertaken in the village in which a chak was carved out, in which the name of the plaintiff/ respondent no. 1 is still recorded and the possession of chak has been handed over to the plaintiff/respondent no. 1.
9. It is stated that the plaintiff/respondent no.
The limitation period for filing a suit based on fraud begins when the plaintiff first becomes aware of the fraud, not at the time of execution of the disputed documents.
Limitation for filing a suit based on fraud begins from the date of knowledge, not the date of registration of the deed.
The court dismissed the appeals on the ground that the suits were barred by the law of limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, as the plaintiffs failed to file the suits within the prescri....
A suit filed more than three years post-execution of a sale-deed is barred by limitation regardless of claims of security, emphasizing the necessity of timely legal action.
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
