Sale Deed Would Be Void In Absence Of Sale Consideration: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea, Says Article 59 Limitation Act Not Applicable

The Supreme Court has dismissed a Civil Appeal, saying that Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be applicable to the case.

The Appeal was filed against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, by which the Second Appeal of the Defendant against the Decree passed by the First Appellate Court was dismissed.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “… the averment of the plaintiff in the plaint, that she had not received the sale consideration, had not been otherwise proven as false. In such circumstances as well, i.e., in the absence of the sale consideration being tendered, the sale deed would be void and the plaintiff would not be required to seek its cancellation. Therefore, Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be said to be applicable to the present facts.”

The Bench remarked that the High Court could be said to have committed an error insofar as observing that it is Article 59 and not Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act which would apply to the case.

Senior Advocate R. Bala Subarmanyam represented the Appellant while AOR R. Bala Subarmanyam represented the Respondents.

Case Background

The Plaintiffs-Respondents instituted a Civil Suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge for permanent injunction restraining the Appellant-Defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in the agricultural land. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs prayed that they be put in joint possession along with the Defendant and the Sale Deed purported to have been executed by one person and the Plaintiffs in favour of Defendant be declared as fraudulent, concocted and thereby, void insofar as the share of the Plaintiff is concerned.

The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the Plaintiffs filed a First Appeal before the District Court. The same was allowed by the First Appellate Court and this was challenged before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the Judgment and Order of the First Appellate Court, which decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs. However, insofar as the issue of limitation was concerned, the High Court differed and came to the conclusion that it is Article 59 of the Limitation Act and not Article 63 that would be applicable to the facts of the matter. In such circumstances, the legal heirs of the Defendant were before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “As far as the facts of the present matter are concerned, the plaintiff specifically averred that she never obtained any sale consideration from the defendant. … Admittedly, the sale consideration is Rs. 15,000/- as per the sale deed. The sale deed indicated that, out of the total sale consideration, the plaintiff and the other vendor i.e., Ram Saran, had already allegedly received Rs. 9000/- from the defendant and that the remaining amount of Rs. 6000/- would be received at the time of the execution of the sale deed, in front of the Registrar.”

The Court observed that the concurrent findings of both the First Appellate Court and the High Court indicated that the husband of the Defendant who had allegedly given the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 6,000/- during the time of execution of the sale deed, had not stepped into the witness box.

“Furthermore, one of the attesting witnesses to the execution of the sale deed i.e., the Sarpanch had also died before his deposition could be recorded. One Budhu, who was the second attesting witness, was the brother of the defendant and both the Courts had doubted his testimony as being partial to the defendant. All in all, there was no witness who could substantiate the case of the defendant that there was part-payment of the sale consideration, i.e., Rs. 6,000/- during the time of execution of the sale deed”, it also added.

The Court said that no evidence was adduced by the Defendant to prove that even the initial amount of Rs. 9,000/- which was purportedly paid before the execution of the sale deed was actually received by the Plaintiff.

“The First Appellate Court had rightly observed that the plaintiff had claimed the relief of joint possession. It had also arrived at the finding that the transaction in question was void. To put it simply, in the eyes of the law, the plaintiff could not be said to have executed the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the date of knowledge that the possession of the defendant was adverse to that of the plaintiff”, it further said.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that even if the date of execution of the sale deed is considered, the suit having been filed almost 11 years later, could be said to be well within limitation as stipulated under Article 65.

“… irrespective of the question of which Article of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable to the suit instituted by the present plaintiff, the suit could be said to have been filed within limitation. Therefore, apart from clarifying the correct position of law, we find no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion that the High Court arrived at as far as the maintainability of the suit on the aspect of limitation is concerned”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title- Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through LRs. Goran v. Jagan Devi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1105)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate R. Bala Subarmanyam, AOR Himanshu Sharma, Advocates Arun Kumar, Varun Sharma, Kamlesh, and Kunal Garg.

Respondents: AOR Arjun Singh Bhati, Advocates Tanmay Nagar, Shamli Verma, and Mohit Yadav.

Click here to read/download the Judgment