Fraudulent execution of a sale deed renders it void ab initio, and knowledge of fraud triggers the limitation period for legal action.

ORDER

7 22-12-2025

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The present Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015 passed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in Title Appeal No. 40 of 2006/43 of 2014 whereby the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2006 passed by learned Munsif, Aurangabad in Title Suit No. 121 of 1995 has been reversed and the suit has been dismissed with cost on contest.

3. The defendants are the appellants in the instant Second Appeal.

4. The plaintiffs-respondents filed Title Suit No. 121 of 1995 to declare the sale deed dated 15.09.1979 as illegal, fraudulent, ab initio void, inoperative and obtained by impersonation as well as other reliefs.

5. In order to appreciate the case in its proper perspective, it is necessary to briefly restate the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs case is that Dalchand Bhagat and Lalchand Bhagat, both sons of Bhawanath Bhagat including Manki Bhagat died long ago while they were living separately and had no concern with each other properties. Lalchand Bhagat died issueless leaving behind his widow namely, Sugiya Kuer, who inherited the property of her husband and she came in peaceful possession over the same. Sugiya Kuer died issueless on 16.09.1995 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her heirs and successor of her properties. It is further pleaded that plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 purchased lands from Sugiya Kuer on 03.06.1995 through registered sale deed for a valuable consideration and they came in possession over the same. It is pleaded that the ground rent of the sold land which were dues was to be paid by Sugiya Kuer as per the oral agreement between the vendor and the vendee; plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on behalf of Sugiya Devi approached the concerned Karamchari of the area on 05.07.1995 to pay the arrears of rent. The Karamchari refused to receive the payment of rent and he stated to the plaintiffs that rent of the said land are being paid by defendants on the basis of sale deed executed by Sugiya Kuer in favour of defendants with respect to the land which was transferred to plaintiff nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs obtained certified copy of the alleged sale deed dated 15.09.1979 on 15.07.1995.

6. It is further case of the plaintiffs that on perusal of the contents of the alleged sale deed, the plaintiffs and Sugiya Devi came to know about alleged sale deed which has been created by fraud and impersonation by the defendants against Sugiya Kuer. Soon thereafter, Sugiya Kuer filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the defendants. The lawyer of the plaintiffs advised to file a civil suit against the defendants. It is further pleaded that Sugiya Kuer had no necessity to sell the suit land in the year 1979 nor she has sold the same for any consideration in favour of the defendants through registered sale deed dated 15.09.1979. Sugiya Kuer has not admitted the execution of sale deed before the Registrar. The alleged sale deed has been created illegally, fraudulently and in collusion with the scribe, witnesses and the identifier, who are strangers and had no concern with Sugiya Kuer. The said sale deed remained inoperative and the defendants never acquired right, title and possession over the same. Sugiya Kuer remained in possession of the said land till execution of the sale deed dated 03.06.1995 in favour of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3. It is further pleaded that Sugiya Devi earlier sold the land through registered sale deed dated 02.05.1988 along with plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff no. 2 with regard