Laws governing limitation preclude challenge to sale deed after lapse of statutory period, emphasizing timely legal action is crucial.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard counsel appearing for the appellant. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of Trial Court passed in O.S.No.115/2012 and also appeal in R.A.No.13/2019.

2. The factual matrix of case of the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court is that suit schedule property is an ancestral property and the sale deed executed by other family members in favour of the first defendant is null and void and also contend that the plaintiff was major as on the date of selling the property on 20.03.2002 and falsely shown as minor and executed the sale deed. Hence, sought the relief of declaration to declare that sale deed is null and void.

3. The defendant No.2 appeared and filed the written statement contending that sale deed was executed in 2002 and suit was filed in 2012 and the same is barred by limitation. It is also contended that sale was made by the parents on behalf of the minor i.e., appellant also and hence, the suit itself is filed only to harass the respondents.

4. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, even after remand also, considered both oral and documentary evidence and taken note of the fact that suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.03.2002 in 2012 and also taken note of the fact that earlier also filed a suit in O.S.No.4/2012 for the relief of partition and the same was dismissed and thereafter, an appeal was also filed and appeal was also dismissed. When the plaintiff already filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession and the same was dismissed, the question of canceling the sale deed does not arise. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that plaintiff was fully aware that property was sold in 2002 itself and she was a member of the family and she had the knowledge and parties with the possession. When such being the case, Articles 58 and 60 of the Limitation Act applies and comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the suit.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.13/2019 and main contention was taken in the appeal that Ex.P2 was produced before the Court i.e., Transfer Certificate that as on the date of selling the property, she was a major, but suppressed the said fact that as she was a minor and executed the sale deed on her behalf also and the same was taken note by the First Appellate Court and in paragraph No.19 discussed with regard to the fact that the present appellant and one sister was minor at the time of sale deed in the year 2002 and father had executed the same as minor guardian for the family necessity. Now, the plaintiff cannot deny the sale deed after ten years and the plaintiff has failed to prove the pleadings that she was a major and only she was left by the father. There must have been some reason, if she was left alone. When the names of other daughters is seen in the sale deed including the name of present appellant and also detailed discussion was made with regard to the earlier suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.4/2012 and the same was dismissed and appeal was also dismissed and also taken note of lower Court has discussed that, when plaintiff has got no share in the suit schedule property, she cannot challenge the sale deed executed by her father, defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and the same is also considered invoking Articles 58 and 60 of the Limitation Act. The First Appellate Court reassessing the evidence available on record affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrie