Verdict

Civil Appeal No. 11795 of 2025
[Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24821 of 2018]

Shanti Devi (since deceased)       
(through her Legal Representative) .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . Appellant(s) 

Versus

Jagan Devi & Others .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  Respondent(s)

On 12th September 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced a verdict that has great significance for all disputes involving claims and counter claims on immovable properties and instruments like sale deeds.

Background and Facts
For the sake of convenience, Appellant – Shanti Devi and her legal representative – shall henceforth be referred to as Defendant; Respondent – Jagan Devi and others – shall be referred to as Plaintiff. This is because the present case has its origins in a civil suit filed by the Respondent Jagan Devi in a lower court.

1. In February 1984, Jagan Devi filed a civil suit in a lower court in Gurgaon seeking a permanent injunction against a Sale Deed supposedly executed by her along with her brother Ram Saran in June 1973.
2. In this suit, Jagan Devi also prayed for joint possession of the sale deed property along with Shanti Devi.   
3. Jagan Devi  claimed that the sale deed, for 1/3rd share in an agricultural land in a village in Gurgaon district, was fraudulent and concocted. She also claimed that
   i) she never received any sale consideration and
   ii) she became aware of the sale deed only at the funeral of her brother who supposedly executed the sale.
4. Shanti Devi, (and later her legal representative) responded to the civil suit by 
   i) invoking Article 59 of Limitations Act, 1963 that imposes a 3-year time limit on disputing the sale deed and 
   ii) questioning Jagan Devi’s locus standi to file the suit. Shanti submitted that Jagan Devi and her brother actually executed the sale deed in her favour and that a consideration of Rs.15,000 was paid to them.        
5. When the Gurgaon lower court dismissed her suit in favour of Defendant in October 1991, Jagan Devi made an appeal in Gurgaon District Court immediately thereafter. 
6. The District Court upheld Jagan Devi’s appeal under Article 65 of Limitations Act, 1963, which provides a time limit of 12 years for a suit pertaining to immovable property. 
7. Aggrieved, Shanti Devi then appealed to Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging District Court’s order. Even though High Court maintained that Article 59 and not 65 was the applicable Article in this dispute, it dismissed Shanti’s appeal and ruled in favour of Jagan Devi.    
8. Shanti then filed the present civil appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the judgement of High Court. 

Issues involved         

1. Whether the Sale Deed is valid or not?
2. Whether Jagan Devi has locus standi in filing the civil suit?
3. Whether Article 59 of Schedule is relevant to this case or Article 65, for determining the applicable time limit? 

Previous cases referred: Supreme Court relied on its own verdicts in the following cases:

• State of Maharashtra v/s Pravin Jethalal Kamdar reported in 2000 SCC OnLine SC 522
• Bhim Singhji v/s Union of India reported in (1981) 1 SCC 186
• Prem Singh v/s Birbal reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353
• Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v/s Habibur Rahman reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892
• Kewal Krishnan v/s Rajesh Kumar and Others reported in (2022) 18 SCC 489

Analysis & Judgment

Whether the Sale Deed is valid or not?

• Original sale deed was not produced before the High Court by Shanti who claimed it was misplaced.       She also could not produce the Agreement to Sell which she claimed was made prior to the sale deed. 
• Shanti stated that a closely acquainted woman by name Rasali was present for the sale deed and had affixed her thumb impression as a witness. During cross examination, however, Shanti failed to recognise Rasali. Subsequent examination by handwriting experts confirmed that the thumb impression on the sale deed was not Rasali’s.  
• The only other witness to the sale deed happened to be Shanti’s brother Budhu. Budhu claimed that Shanti was present at the sale and had affixed her thumb impression on the deed. Sub-Registrar, however, clarified that it was Shanti’s husband who was present at his office on her behalf  and also that her thumb impression was not affixed on the sale deed.
• Shanti could neither produce a single reliable witness nor could she produce the original sale deed or related documents, to substantiate all her claims. 
• It is settled in law that any instrument of sale of an immovable property that is not executed by the owner – in this case Jagan Devi – is ‘void ab initio’ i.e. invalid from the beginning. [Note: When the very ‘character’ of a document is found to be fraudulent, as is the case with present sale deed, the document is ‘void’ i.e. invalid. If the ‘contents’ of a document are found to be fraudulent then such a document is ‘voidable’ i.e. needs to be challenged legally for it to be declared void.]  
• With regard to payment, the sale deed indicated that (i) Rs.15,000 is total consideration (ii) Jagan Devi and her brother Ram Saran already received Rs.9,000 (iii) balance Rs.6,000 will be paid to Plaintiff while executing sale deed in front of the Sub-Registrar in his office.
• While executing sale deed, Sub-Registrar’s endorsement on the document shows (i) contents of sale deed have been read over and understood by Ram Saran 2/3rd share, Rasali 1/3rd share and one Mr.  Bhadgawat, husband of Shanti Devi (ii) Bhadgawat has paid Rs.6,000 to Shanti and others in presence of Mahadev Singh, village sarpanch, and Budhu.
• During the trials in District and High Courts, however, Bhadgawat did not appear in the witness box for deposition. Also, village sarpanch Mahadev Singh had died by then. Budhu’s evidence was not relied upon by either courts, since he was Shanti’s brother with a natural bias towards her. As a result, Shanti’s claims to have paid the consideration could not be substantiated at all in the courts.
• In the absence of payment of consideration, the sale deed becomes void. Hence, there is no need at all for Plaintiff to seek its cancellation in the first place. 

Whether Plaintiff has locus standi in filing the civil suit?

• Jagan Devi first came to know of adverse possession of her property, vide sale deed supposedly executed in June 1973, in February 1984. She immediately filed suit for not only permanent injunction but also for joint possession of property along with Shanti. 
• In cases seeking possession of property, Article 65 of Limitation Act becomes applicable which sets 12 years from ‘when possession by defendant becomes adverse to plaintiff’ as the time limit for filing suit and not Article 59 (3 years) as claimed by Shanti. This was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 
• Supreme Court also held that Article 59 does not apply to a sale deed that has been proven to be void.
• Plaintiff has locus standi to file a ‘simpliciter’ suit for possession of property adversely affected by ‘void’ sale deed. Simpliciter suit is an appeal where only a declaration is to be made and there is no prayer for any relief or rectification.

Whether Article 59 is relevant to this case or Article 65, for determining the applicable time limit? 

• Article 59 of Limitations Act, 1963, applies to suits seeking cancellation or setting aside of a decree or instrument (such as a sale deed) or rescission of a contract, where the time limit for filing suit is 3 years from when the facts that give cause to the Jagan Devi for action first become known to him/her.
• Whereas, Article 65 of Limitations Act, 1963, applies to suits seeking possession of immovable property or claiming interest on the same. The time limit provided is 12 years from when the possession by Shanti becomes adverse to the Jagan Devi.
• As decreed by Supreme Court in this case, Article 59 does not apply to the sale deed that has been proven to be void.
• As also decreed by Supreme Court, Article 65 is applicable to the present case where the Jagan Devi has filed a suit seeking joint possession of the property. 
• In the present case, Jagan Devi’s suit has been filed in trial court in February 1984, well within the 12 year time limit of the sale deed executed (fraudulently, though) by Shanti in June 1973.

Based on the above, the Supreme Court set aside the appeal filed by Shanti and others.

For full text of the judgement:
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/29460/29460_2018_8_1503_64231_Judgement_12-Sep-2025.pdf