2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25431

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
E.S. Indiresh, J
Jayalakshmamma – Appellant
Versus
Rama Reddy – Respondent
RSA No. 438 of 2013

A suit for cancellation of a sale deed is barred by limitation if not filed within three years of knowledge; a plaintiff claiming minority must prove it through legally admissible evidence like a School Leaving Certificate.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Scope of interference - High Court, in exercise of powers under Section 100, can interfere with findings of First Appellate Court if such findings are based on misreading of evidence or are perverse. (Paras 8, 20-23)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 35 and 74 - School transfer certificate is a public document, but its contents must be proved by examining the issuing authority; a duplicate transfer certificate, not proved in accordance with law, has no evidentiary value - Driving Licence is not conclusive proof of age - Discrepancies in age stated by a party on multiple occasions weaken the claim. (Paras 19, 20)

(C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 59 and 65 - Suit for cancellation of a sale deed - Limitation period is three years from the date of knowledge of the deed - A suit is barred by limitation if not filed within three years of knowledge - Mere possession being a consequential relief does not extend the limitation period for the substantive relief. (Paras 21, 22)

(D) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 62 - A contract by a minor is voidable, not void ab initio - Burden of proving minority at the time of execution of a document is on the person alleging it - When a person signs as a witness to a sale deed and a confirmation deed, it indicates knowledge and consent, weakening the claim of fraud. (Paras 20, 23) (E) Law of Evidence - Burden of Proof - In a suit for declaration, the plaintiff must prove his case on cogent documents; the weakness of the defendant’s case cannot be a ground for decreeing the suit. (Para 21) (F) Appeal - Duty of First Appellate Court - The First Appellate Court must re-appreciate the entire evidence in a manner known to law as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC; failure to do so is a ground for interference by High Court in second appeal. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the grandson of the deceased Chikkabbaiah, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendants 1-4 (his uncles) and defendant No.5 (purchaser). He alleged that he was a minor on 20.04.1995 when defendants 1-4 fraudulently executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.5, and that he was the beneficiary of a Will dated 14.09.1990 executed by his grandfather. The plaintiff claimed he came to know of the fraud in 1999. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal and decreed the suit. Defendant No.5 preferred the present Regular Second Appeal.

Findings of Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal. It held that the First Appellate Court erred in holding the plaintiff was a minor based on a duplicate Transfer Certificate (Ex.P16) and a Driving Licence (Ex.P5) without proving these documents in accordance with law. The Court noted that the plaintiff gave inconsistent ages at different stages of litigation. The Court further held that since the plaintiff was a witness to the sale deed (Ex.D2) and had executed a confirmation deed (Ex.D25), the suit was filed after a considerable delay (three years from knowledge) and was barred by limitation. The High Court restored the Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the suit.

Issues: (1) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff was a minor on the date of the sale deed based on unproved documents? (2) Whether the suit for declaration was maintainable without seeking the relief of possession? (3) Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving minority is on the person alleging it; inconsistent statements about age and reliance on unproved documents cannot establish minority. A suit for cancellation of a sale deed is barred by limitation if not filed within three years of the date of knowledge of the deed. An appellate court cannot base its findings on unproved documents.

Result: Regular Second Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside; judgment and decree of the Trial Court (dismissing the suit) confirmed.