This case concerned a sale deed and arose out of a civil suit that was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiffs filed a first appeal which was allowed by the district court and the suit was decreed. On the question of limitation, it was held that the limitation period was 12 years applying Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the suit was filed within the said period of 12 years. The defendants filed a second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed. On the question of limitation, it was held that the suit was to be filed within 3 years from the date of knowledge (instead of 12 years) applying Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The legal heirs of the original defendants then approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court confined itself to the question whether the plaintiff’s suit was time-barred or not.

The Bench held that in order to ascertain whether Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the factual scenario, it has to first determine whether fraud was alleged as regards the contents of the sale deed. Since the plaintiff had not executed the sale deed and the original was also not produced, it was held that Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not apply.

The Bench further reiterated earlier law – “If a sale deed is executed without the payment of price, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law, specifically under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Such a sale without consideration would be void and would not affect the transfer of the immovable property.”.

Since there was no sale consideration, the Bench held that 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.

The Bench further held that 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”. The appeal was dismissed holding that the High Court could be said to have committed an error insofar as applying Article 59 instead of Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The Bench thus clarified the correct position of law and found no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion of the High Court insofar as the maintainability of the suit on the aspect of limitation is concerned.