A registered sale deed is prima facie valid; a suit challenging its validity on the grounds of lack of right to sell is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act (3-year limit) rather than Article 65, unless the document is presumptively invalid.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This Second appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 20.12.2023 (decree signed on 02.01.2024) passed by learned District Judge I, Latehar in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2019 whereby the first appeal has been dismissed. The trial court’s judgement was passed vide judgement and decree dated 27.09.2019 (decree signed on 03.10.2019) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division II) Latehar in Title Suit No.42 of 2013.

3. The suit was dismissed and the First Appeal was also dismissed. Consequently, the plaintiff is the appellant before this case.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the trial court’s judgement and submitted that specific findings were recorded that defendant no.1 had no right to execute the sale deed no.2334 of 2007 dated 10.10.2007 in favour of defendant no.2 and issue no.3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant nos.1 and 2, still the suit was dismissed.

5. The learned counsel submits that the learned 1st appellate court has sustained the judgement of dismissal on the ground that the suit itself was barred by limitation and had applied Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel submits that the sale deed itself was null and void as the same was not executed by the plaintiff and since the plaintiff was in possession, there was no need to seek any declaration of title by adverse possession. He submits that since the sale deed was not executed by the plaintiff, the suit was to be governed by the provision of Article 65 of the Limitation Act and the period of Limitation would have been 12 years.

6. He has referred to the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2011 (1) AIR Jhar R 463 ( Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Ors. ), in Civil Appeal No.2811-2813 of 2010, and has referred to paragraph 6 thereof to submit that when the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed, but if a non-executant seeks annulment, then he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid or non est or illegal and not binding upon him. The learned counsel then relied upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2025 Supreme Court 4342 ( Shanti Devi through Lrs. Goran Vs. Jagan Devi and Ors. ) and referred to paragraphs 5, 9 to 12 to give the factual background of the cited judgement and then referred to paragraphs 21 and 22, which was the argument advanced on behalf of the original plaintiff before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has also referred to the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 38 and 39, which are quoted as under:

“38. Concurrent findings of both the First Appellate Court and the High Court indicated that the husband of the defendant i.e., one Bagdawat, who had allegedly given the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 6,000/- during the time of execution of the sale deed, had not stepped into the witness box. Furthermore, one of the attesting witnesses to the execution of the sale deed i.e., the Sarpanch had also died before his deposition could be recorded. O