Summary and Analysis of Shanti Devi Deceased through LRs vs Jagan Devi & Ors 2025 INSC 1105

1. Heading of the Judgment

Limitation Period for Suit Challenging Fraudulent and Void Sale Deed – Applicability of Article 65 vs. Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Citation: Shanti Devi (Deceased) through LRs v. Jagan Devi & Ors., 2025 INSC 1105 (Supreme Court of India, decided on 12.09.2025)

2. Relevant Laws and Legal Provisions

• Limitation Act, 1963: Articles 59 and 65

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 54

• Indian Registration Act, 1908

• Punjab Land Revenue Act: Section 44 (presumption of truth in mutation)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 35-A (costs)

3. Basic Details of the Case

• Parties:
  Appellant: Legal heirs of Shanti Devi (original defendant)
  Respondents: Jagan Devi & Ors. (original plaintiffs)

• Civil Suit No.: 782 of 1984

• Courts Below:
  Trial Court: Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon – dismissed the suit
  First Appellate Court: District Court – decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs
  High Court of Punjab & Haryana – dismissed the second appeal

• Supreme Court: Dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree in favor of the plaintiffs.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Factual Background

The plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit seeking:

• Permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with their possession of a one-third share in agricultural land,

• Alternatively, joint possession,

• Declaration that the sale deed dated 14.06.1973 was fraudulent, void, and not binding on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Rasali, alleged that she never executed the sale deed, never received any sale consideration, and came to know about the fraud only in 1984 upon the death of her brother Ram Saran, the other vendor.

The defendant claimed that the sale deed was validly executed, and the plaintiff had received consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the sale deed was void or voidable?

2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

3. Whether Article 59 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied?

Supreme Court’s Analysis

a. Nature of the Sale Deed: Void vs. Voidable

The Court reaffirmed the distinction between void and voidable instruments:

• A void document is a nullity from inception and does not require cancellation. It can be ignored in law.

• A voidable document is valid until set aside and requires a declaration of invalidity.

The Court relied on:

• Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353: Fraud as to the character of the document (e.g., forgery) makes it void; fraud as to contents makes it voidable.

• State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar (2000 SCC OnLine SC 522): A void document need not be set aside; a suit for possession simpliciter under Article 65 is maintainable.

• Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman (2025 SCC OnLine SC 892): A non-party to a document need not seek its cancellation but may seek a declaration that it is not binding.

In this case, both the First Appellate Court and the High Court found that the plaintiff’s thumb impression was forged, and she never received consideration. Hence, the sale deed was void ab initio.

b. Applicable Limitation Period

• Article 59: Applies to suits to cancel or set aside an instrument. Limitation: 3 years from knowledge.

• Article 65: Applies to suits for possession based on title. Limitation: 12 years from when possession becomes adverse.

The Supreme Court held:

• Since the sale deed was void, Article 59 did not apply.

• The suit was essentially for possession based on title, governed by Article 65.

• Even if the defendant’s possession became adverse from the date of the sale deed (14.06.1973), the suit filed on 28.02.1984 was within 12 years.

• The plaintiff’s knowledge in 1984 did not alter the applicability of Article 65.

c. Burden of Proof and Evidence

• The defendant failed to:
  Produce the original sale deed.
  Examine key witnesses (husband of defendant, Sarpanch).
  Prove payment of sale consideration.

• The plaintiff led expert evidence to show that her thumb impression was forged.

• The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower appellate courts that the sale deed was fraudulent and void.

d. Consideration and Validity of Sale

The Court cited Kewal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar (2022) 18 SCC 489:

• Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, a sale must be for a price.

• Non-payment of consideration renders the sale void.

• The defendant failed to prove payment of ₹15,000/-, strengthening the conclusion that the sale was sham.

5. Supreme Court’s Directions

• The suit was held to be within limitation under Article 65.

• The sale deed dated 14.06.1973 was declared void and not binding on the plaintiff.

• The plaintiff was entitled to joint possession of her one-third share.

• The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

6. Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified the legal position on void documents and the applicable limitation period. It emphasized that:

• A void instrument need not be set aside.

• A suit for possession based on title under Article 65 is maintainable within 12 years of adverse possession.

• Fraudulent sale deeds without consideration are void and do not transfer title.

This judgment reinforces the principle that registered documents, though presumed valid, can be challenged with sufficient evidence of fraud or invalidity.