New Delhi, September 12, 2025: The Supreme Court of India has delivered an important ruling in the case of Shanti Devi (since deceased) v. Jagan Devi & Ors., settling a long-standing dispute over agricultural land in Haryana and clarifying the law on when a property suit is barred by limitation.
The Case at a Glance
The dispute began in 1984 when the plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership of a one-third share in agricultural land measuring over 31 kanals in Gurgaon district. They alleged that a 1973 sale deed through which Shanti Devi claimed to have purchased the property was fraudulent, as the real owner, Rasali, had never signed or consented to it.
The plaintiffs sought protection of their rights, either through an injunction or joint possession.
- Trial Court (1991): Dismissed the suit, holding it time-barred.
- First Appellate Court (1996): Reversed the decision, finding the sale deed void and granting relief to the plaintiffs.
- Punjab & Haryana High Court (2018): Upheld the appellate court, though it relied on a different provision of the Limitation Act.
- Supreme Court (2025): Finally settled the matter.
The Core Legal Question: Limitation Period
The crux of the appeal before the Supreme Court was:
- Should the suit have been filed within 3 years (under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which applies when cancelling or setting aside an instrument)?
- Or within 12 years (under Article 65, which applies to suits for possession of immovable property based on title)?
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that:
- The 1973 sale deed was void ab initio (null from the start) because the plaintiff never executed it and no valid consideration (payment) was proved.
- A void document need not be cancelled: it simply has no legal existence. Therefore, Article 59 (3-year limit) does not apply.
- Instead, Article 65 applies, giving the plaintiff 12 years from the date possession became adverse to file a claim.
- Since the suit was filed in 1984, 11 years after the disputed sale deed, it was well within time.
The Court dismissed the appeal filed by Shanti Devi’s heirs, affirming the plaintiffs’ ownership rights.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Clarifies distinction between void and voidable documents: If a sale deed is void (e.g., forged, executed without authority, or without consideration), the aggrieved party need not seek its cancellation.
- Secures property rights: Owners can rely on Article 65’s longer 12-year limitation for possession suits based on title.
- Guidance for future cases: The ruling draws from earlier precedents and consolidates the legal position, reducing uncertainty in land disputes.
Final Word
By upholding the rights of the plaintiffs and reinforcing that fraudulent or sham sale deeds cannot defeat genuine ownership, the Supreme Court has once again emphasized that substance prevails over form in property law.