Prem Singh vs Birbal - 2006 Supreme(SC) 440

Q: Key Points

Jist: In a suit for declaration and partition claiming co-sharer status in suit land, plaintiff sought to cancel a 1961 sale deed (executed when allegedly a minor via fraud), filed in 1979. Trial court dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 59 Limitation Act. Appellate courts reversed, holding deed void ab initio (no limitation). Supreme Court restored trial court decree: Article 59 applies to suits canceling instruments on grounds like fraud (requiring proof), even if prima facie valid (registered deeds presumed valid; onus on plaintiff to rebut). Fraud as to contents = voidable (3-year limit from knowledge/attaining majority); not character (void). Plaintiff failed to sue within 12 years of deed or 3 years of majority; suit barred. [1000358980002][1000358980001] (!) [1000358980026][1000358980027]

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 440

S.B.SINHA, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
Prem Singh – Appellant
Versus
Birbal – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Jist: In a suit for declaration and partition claiming co-sharer status in suit land, plaintiff sought to cancel a 1961 sale deed (executed when allegedly a minor via fraud), filed in 1979. Trial court dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 59 Limitation Act. Appellate courts reversed, holding deed void ab initio (no limitation). Supreme Court restored trial court decree: Article 59 applies to suits canceling instruments on grounds like fraud (requiring proof), even if prima facie valid (registered deeds presumed valid; onus on plaintiff to rebut). Fraud as to contents = voidable (3-year limit from knowledge/attaining majority); not character (void). Plaintiff failed to sue within 12 years of deed or 3 years of majority; suit barred. [1000358980002][1000358980001] (!) [1000358980026][1000358980027]

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. Whether the provision of Article 59 of the Limitation Act would be attracted in a suit filed for setting aside a Deed of Sale, is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Civil Second Appeal No. 8 of 1998.

3. Respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration and partition of the land consisting of 19 bighas and 12 biswas claiming himself to be a co-sharer with the defendant. One Mihilal was the owner of the suit land comprising of different khasra numbers, situate in Village Akhoda, in the District of Bhind. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 alleging that his father Chhedilal had a share therein in addition to owner of another land in khasra No. 516, measuring 6 biswas. Chhdilal died in the year 1950. His wife also died soon thereafter. At the time of the death of his father, the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 was a minor. He started living with Appellant No. 4-Lal Bihari. He, allegedly, executed a deed of sale on 1.1.1961 in respect of khasra No. 516 measuring 6 biswas to Babu Singh and Tek Singh for a consideration of Rs. 7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 440

S.B.SINHA, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYANPrem Singh – AppellantVersusBirbal – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

S.B.SINHA, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
Prem Singh – Appellant
Versus
Birbal – Respondent