Supreme Court: Under which circumstances limitation for setting aside sale deed will not commence inspite of its registration?

 We examine the plea of limitation raised by the Respondents. The Respondents' case is that the suit was filed on 11.05.2011, and in effect, the suit seeks to set aside the sale deed dated 16.04.2008 (Ex. A-5). The suit was filed beyond the limitation period and should have been dismissed. Limitation is a question of law and fact. The period of limitation and the time from which the period begins to run, depend on the Article in the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act of 1963. The case falls under "Part III - Suits Relating to Declarations". Article 58 reads thus:

{Para 15}

15.1. The words "when the right to sue first accrues" have been interpreted and held by this Court in Smt. Neelam Kumari and Anr. v. U.P. Financial Corporation MANU/UC/0123/2008 : AIR 2009 Utt 5. The starting point for the limitation in the case of setting aside sale deeds has two limbs: the date of execution and the date of knowledge. There is no difficulty in applying the period of limitation expiring three years from the date of execution, provided that the Appellant had knowledge of Ex. A-5 on the date of registration and the right to sue first accrued. The Respondents, in the circumstances of the case, failed to establish the Appellant's knowledge of the execution of Ex. A-5. In the final analysis, Ex. A-5 is held as without authority and void. The applicability of limitation has a different perspective. So, the starting point is when the right to sue first accrued to the Appellant. The admitted case of the Respondents is that the Appellant is a US citizen and she stayed abroad. Therefore, unless it is clearly established as a fact that the Appellant had knowledge of Ex. A-5, it cannot be inferred that the Appellant had contemporaneous knowledge of Ex. A-5 and the limitation started running from the date of execution of Ex. A-5. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6495 of 2023

Decided On: 09.07.2024

Thankamma George Vs. Lilly Thomas and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and S.V. Bhatti, JJ.

Author: S.V. Bhatti, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0582/2024,2024 INSC 494.

Print Page

Whether plaintiff is required to pay Advaloram court fees if he has only filed suit for registration of sale deed?

 In this case, plaintiff is seeking appropriate directions to the authorities to register the sale deed dated 1st February, 2011 and thus, it was not a comprehensive suit, being not coupled with any other reliefs. In the given set of facts, the subject matter of the dispute being not susceptible of monetary valuation, it is subject to valuation under clause (j) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Court-fees Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5426 of 2012

Decided On: 05.07.2019

Prakash Nandkishor Bhalke  Vs.  The Joint District Registrar, Photozinco Premises 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

Citation: 2020(1) MHLJ 646

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory that both parties should remain present before sub registrar at the time of registration of sale deed?

We find from the judgment of the Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court that the respective parties had led evidence of

execution and subsequent registration of the deeds but the first

two courts did not reject the contention of the second set of

defendants that there was no execution by Madegowda (since

deceased) of the deed of sale to Manchegowda (since deceased).

The case has been decided in favour of the plaintiff on the

ground that the buyer was not present at the time of

registration of sale deed. There is evidence to the effect that the

second defendant (Manchegowda) had not come to the office of

the SubRegistrar

at the time of execution of the sale deed. But

as per law as it stood at the material point of time, there was no

necessity of presence of purchaser at the Registration Office

during the registration of sale deed. The deed was executed by

Madegowda and that aspect has not been disputed. The deed in

question does not fall within Sections 31, 88 and 89 of the

Registration Act. Section 32 of the said Act does not require

presence of both parties to a deed of sale when the same is

presented for registration.

(NonReportable)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3975 OF 2010

H.P.Puttaswamy  Vs  Thimmamma 

ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J.

Dated:Dated: 24th January, 2020.

Print Page

Whether registration of copy of decree or order of court is permissible under registration Act?

But the main question for consideration is whether the Registration Act authorises the registration of a certified copy of a document when the original is lost or not produced by the party when called upon to do so by the registering authority. There is no express provision in that Act authorising the registration of a copy of a document. The only exception is as regards copies of decrees or orders of court for which special provisions have been made in the proviso toSection 23 and Sub-section (5) of Section 34. Copy of decree has also been referred to inSection 58(1). Hence, when the Registration Act expressly provides for the registration of a copy of a decree or order of a court and does not make such a provision as regards a certified copy of a private document such as a deed of sale, there seems to be no authority for registration of such a certified copy.1

Patna High Court

Sadhu Singh vs Ramawadh Singh And Ors. on 27 April, 1966

Equivalent citations: AIR 1966 Pat 369

Bench: R Narasimham, A Ahmad

Print Page

Whether Registrar can refuse to register sale deed on the ground that challan showing deposit of stamp duty is more than one year?

Whereas there is a specific
limitation regarding usage of a stamp paper, there is no such
restriction on usage of challan and the department correctly
appreciating the statutory provisions had issued the earlier directive
dated 2.4.2012 placed at Annexure-4. The department perhaps
having realized the legal infirmity in the letter bearing Memo
no.3418 dated 11.8.2014 placed at Annexure-B to the main counter
affidavit has decided to amend the same but once this Court has
noticed the transgression by the Inspector General of Registration,
any continuance of the said letter would be prolonging an illegality
and in consequence the letter bearing Memo no.3418 dated
11.8.2014 of the Inspector General of Registration placed at
Annexure-B to the main counter affidavit, is quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15981 of 2014
With
I.A. No.149 of 2015
With
I.A. No.3094 of 2015
Citation;AIR 2015 Patna 133
 Kumari Shivani Rai, V  The State of Bihar 


CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
Citation;AIR 2015 Patna 133
Date: 21-04-2015

Print Page