9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute is situated in village Tibba, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. In January 2004, when the plaintiff visited his native village in order to negotiate the sale of his property including the suit land, he came to know that the defendant had already prepared a false sale deed. On enquiry from the villagers and the revenue record, he found that the defendant Ranjit Singh in connivance with his brother Sarup Singh and the marginal witnesses had fabricated a false sale deed dated 30.11.1981. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he had never sold the land. The plea raised by the plaintiff was that the sale to the extent of his share did not confer any right on the defendant. The plaintiff approached the police and lodged a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears. In the alternative the defendant took the plea of adverse possession. It was pleaded that the appeal had been filed against the conviction order. It was pleaded that the judgment dated 17.10.2006 was not binding as the suit had been filed by Satinder Kaur without proper authorization. 4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration that the sale deed dated 30.11.1981, registered on 2.12.1981, executed by defendant regarding suit land to the extent of his share in favour of plaintiff is illegal, invalid and confers no title or interest in favour of plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit land on the basis of title? OPP 3. Whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. The finding recorded on the issue of limitation was affirmed. 7. The present appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law framed on 21.08.2014:- "(i) Whether the plaintiff can be non-suited on the ground of limitation in a suit for possession? (ii) Whether dismissal of earlier suit filed by Ranjit Singh son of Sohan Singh (respondent in the instant appeal) through his wife Satwinder Kaur will operate as res judicata?" 8. The only issue which has to be examined is whether the suit is governed by Article 59 and whether the suit is barred by time as it was only canvassed before me. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n instrument which is void or voidable. 11. There is no dispute with respect to the date of filing of the suit. The suit was filed on 07.02.2007. In para 7 of the plaint there is a specific averment that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff in January 2004, when the plaintiff came to know regarding the false sale deed. 12. Para 7 of the plaint reads as under:- "7. That the cause of action arose to the plaintiff in January 2004, when the plaintiff came to know regarding this false sale deed regarding the suit land from the village and from the revenue record, and further from the refusal of the defendant and his wife being his attorney since a week back." 13. The question of limitation solely revolves round the interpretation to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relief. 16. When a document is valid, no question arises of its cancellation. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non-est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity. 17. Once, however, a suit is filled by a plaintiff for cancellation of a transaction, it would be governed by Article 59. Even if Article 59 is not attracted, the residuary Article would be. 18. Article 59 would be attracted when coercion, undue influence, misappropriation or fraud which the plaintiff asserts is required to be proved. Article 59 would apply to the case of such instrument. It would, therefore, apply where a document is prima facie valid. It would not apply only to instruments which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o right to remain in possession. Since the possession has been taken on the basis of void document Article 65 of the Limitation Act would apply and the limitation to file a suit would be 12 years. 20. In Ajudh Raj and others vs. Moti s/o. Mussadi, 1991(3) SCC 136, it was held that if the order has been passed without jurisdiction, the same can be ignored as nullity, that is, non-existent in the eyes of law and is not necessary to set it aside, and such a suit will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 21. The plaintiff is claiming possession of the property on the basis that he was a co-owner. By way of a registered sale deed, the property had been sold to the defendant by the brother of the plaintiff by impersonation. The poss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
