Supreme Court Rules on Property Dispute and Limitation Act
NEW DELHI – In a significant judgment, (SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) VERSUS
JAGAN DEVI & ORS, 2025 INSC 1105) the Supreme Court of India has upheld the rights of a plaintiff, Rasali, in a long-standing property dispute, confirming that a sale deed executed without the owner’s consent is “void ab initio” (void from the beginning) and does not require a specific challenge within a limited timeframe to be set aside.
The case, which reached the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 11795 of 2025, involved a fraudulent sale deed from 1973. The plaintiff, Rasali, alleged that a sale deed for her one-third share in agricultural land in Gurgaon, Haryana, was fraudulently executed by impersonation and without her consent or knowledge. The defendant, Shanti Devi, claimed to have lawfully purchased the land and argued that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was time-barred.
The Legal Battle
The legal proceedings spanned decades and multiple courts. The Trial Court initially dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, finding it was barred by time. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiff and holding that the sale deed was void as Rasali had never executed it. This court applied Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for a 12-year period to file a suit for possession of immovable property based on title.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana affirmed the First Appellate Court’s decision to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. While it agreed that the plaintiff had proven that she never executed the sale deed, it held that Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which sets a three-year limit to cancel a fraudulent instrument, was applicable. However, it noted that the suit was still filed within the three-year limit from the time the plaintiff gained knowledge of the fraudulent transaction.
Supreme Court’s Final Ruling
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, focused on the central legal question: whether Article 59 (three-year limitation for cancellation of a fraudulent instrument) or Article 65 (12-year limitation for a suit for possession based on title) applied to the case.
The Court cited previous precedents and clarified that a document that is “void ab initio” or a “nullity” does not need to be formally challenged in court. The plaintiff can simply file a suit for possession, and the limitation period for such a suit is 12 years under Article 65. The Court stated that the High Court was incorrect in its observation that Article 59 applied.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s conclusion that the suit was not time-barred. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that a fraudulent and void transaction cannot transfer any legal right, and the original owner can recover possession of their property even after a significant period of time, as long as it is within the 12-year limitation period.