SANTOSH DEVI versus SUNDER

SANTOSH DEVI versus SUNDER

The Court held that the initial onus was on the petitioner to plead and prove particularized fraud to claim exemption from limitation under Order VII Rule 6 and Section 17; a registered sale deed is presumed genuine and the record showed the petitioner had signed and was aware of the deed, and the alleged fraud in the sale transaction did not demonstrate that the petitioner was kept unaware of her right to sue, therefore the suit was barred by limitation and the High Court committed no error.

Parties
Petitioner: Santosh Devi; Respondent: Sunder
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Judgment on SLP Arising From Second Appeal Affirmed by High Court
Outcome
Special Leave Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 17 Limitation Act, 1963, Order VII Rule 6 CPC, Fraud, Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed, Presumption in Respect of Registered Documents
Limitation Law Civil Procedure Property Law Registration Law Section 17 Limitation Act, 1963 Order VII Rule 6 CPC Fraud Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santosh Devi

Petitioner

Sunder

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Judgment on SLP Arising From Second Appeal Affirmed by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed was barred by limitation
  2. 2 Whether the plaint satisfied Order VII Rule 6 CPC by pleading grounds for exemption from limitation (particulars of fraud)
  3. 3 Whether alleged fraud in the sale transaction attracted Section 17 Limitation Act by keeping plaintiff unaware of her right to sue

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the initial onus was on the petitioner to plead and prove particularized fraud to claim exemption from limitation under Order VII Rule 6 and Section 17; a registered sale deed is presumed genuine and the record showed the petitioner had signed and was aware of the deed, and the alleged fraud in the sale transaction did not demonstrate that the petitioner was kept unaware of her right to sue, therefore the suit was barred by limitation and the High Court committed no error.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Delay condoned in filing and refiling the SLP
  • Special Leave Petition dismissed