Case Note: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi & Ors. Case Citation: 2025 INSC 1105, Civil Appeal No. 11795 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 24821/2018) Court: Supreme…
Case Note: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi & Ors.
Case Citation: 2025 INSC 1105, Civil Appeal No. 11795 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 24821/2018)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J. and R. Mahadevan, J.
Date of Judgment: September 12, 2025
Facts
The dispute involves a civil suit filed in 1984 by the original plaintiffs (respondents herein) for a permanent injunction and, in the alternative, joint possession of a one-third share in agricultural land. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and alleged that a sale deed dated June 14, 1973, purportedly executed by the plaintiff and another person named Ram Saran in favor of the defendant (appellant herein), was fraudulent, concocted, and void regarding the plaintiff’s share. The defendant claimed the plaintiff and her brother had sold the land to her and that the plaintiff had appeared before the Sub-Registrar to execute the deed.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, observing that the transaction was void because the plaintiff, Smt. Risali, had never executed the sale deed. The First Appellate Court applied Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, finding the suit to be within the 12-year limitation period for possession based on title. The High Court dismissed the defendant’s second appeal, affirming the judgment but holding that Article 59 of the Limitation Act applied, noting that the suit was filed within the three-year period from the date of knowledge of the fraudulent transaction. The Supreme Court confined its consideration to the question of whether the suit was time-barred.
Issue
The primary issue before the court was whether the suit was barred by limitation and which Article of the Limitation Act, 1963, was applicable: Article 59 (three years to cancel a fraudulent instrument) or Article 65 (twelve years for possession of immovable property based on title).
Judgment
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, clarified the correct legal position regarding the application of the Limitation Act. The Court found that the High Court had erred in applying Article 59. The Court’s reasoning was based on the distinction between a
void and a voidable transaction.
Void vs. Voidable Documents: The Court held that Article 59 applies to voidable transactions, where an instrument is prima facie valid but needs to be set aside due to fraud, coercion, or undue influence. However, in this case, the lower courts had concurrently found that the plaintiff never executed the sale deed, and her thumb impressions were not on the document. This made the sale deed
void ab initio (void from the beginning), as the fraud related to the “character of the document” itself and not just its contents.
Requirement for Cancellation: The Court reiterated the principle that a person who is not a party to a void instrument is not obligated to sue for its cancellation as it is a nullity in the eyes of the law. Such a plaintiff can simply file a suit for possession based on their title, which is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
Absence of Consideration: The Court also considered the plaintiff’s claim that she never received any sale consideration. Citing its own precedent, the Court stated that a sale deed executed without the payment of a price is void and does not legally transfer ownership. Given the lack of evidence from the defendant to prove payment of the consideration, the sale deed was void on this ground as well.
Limitation: The Court concluded that the correct provision was indeed Article 65, which provides a 12-year limitation period for a suit for possession. Since the suit was filed on February 28, 1984, approximately 11 years after the execution of the fraudulent sale deed on June 14, 1973, it was well within the 12-year limitation period. The Court affirmed the High Court’s ultimate conclusion to dismiss the appeal but corrected its reasoning on the applicable law.
End Notes: Case Laws Cited
(i) State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar, 2000 SCC OnLine SC 522:
Held that for void or non-est documents, a simpliciter suit for possession is sufficient, and the limitation period is governed by Article 65 (12 years). A declaration is not necessary for void documents.
(ii) Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353:
Distinguished between void and voidable transactions. Ruled that Article 59 applies to voidable transactions (e.g., fraud as to the contents of a document).
For void transactions (e.g., fraud as to the character of a document), a decree for setting aside is not necessary as they are a nullity.
(iii) Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892:
Reiterated that a plaintiff who is not a party to an instrument is not required to sue for its cancellation, as such an instrument is not binding on them.
A suit for a declaration that the instrument is “not binding” on the plaintiff is the appropriate remedy.
(iv) Kewal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar and Others, (2022) 18 SCC 489:
Affirmed that a sale of immovable property without the payment of a price is not a “sale” in the eyes of law and is void.
Such a void document need not be challenged by seeking a declaration and can be ignored.
Download PDF of Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi (Supreme Court)