Fraud in gift deed contents makes the transaction voidable, while undue influence claims run from knowledge for limitation purposes.

Fraud affecting only the contents of a gift deed renders the instrument voidable, not void, and limitation under Article 95 runs from discovery of the fraud; on that basis, the challenge to plots 91 and 92 was within time. By contrast, where a gift was found to have been procured by undue influence, the burden under Section 16(3) of the Contract Act and Section 111 of the Evidence Act applied, but limitation under Article 91 ran from knowledge of the facts entitling cancellation; on that basis, the challenge to plots 407/1 and 409/1 was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inclusion of plots 91 and 92 in the gift deed was the result of fraud, making the transaction void or voidable, and whether the suit was within limitation under Article 95 of the Indian Limitation Act; (ii) whether the gift in respect of plots 407/1 and 409/1 was obtained by undue influence and, if so, whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Issue (i): Whether the inclusion of plots 91 and 92 in the gift deed was the result of fraud, making the transaction void or voidable, and whether the suit was within limitation under Article 95 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Analysis: The facts showed that the appellant did not intend to convey the Lingadahalli lands and that they were inserted in the deed without her knowledge. The legal distinction drawn was that fraud as to the contents of a document makes the transaction voidable, whereas fraud as to the character of the document would make it void. As the case involved fraud in the contents, the deed was only voidable, and the period of limitation began when the fraud became known to the appellant, not from the date of execution.

Conclusion: The transaction was voidable, not void, and the suit for setting aside the deed as to plots 91 and 92 was within time under Article 95 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the gift in respect of plots 407/1 and 409/1 was obtained by undue influence and, if so, whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Analysis: The husband stood in a position of active confidence and was found to be able to dominate the appellant's will, attracting the statutory burden under Section 16(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The courts below accepted that undue influence had been established, but the appellant had knowledge of the circumstances enabling cancellation at the time of execution. Under Article 91, limitation runs from knowledge of the facts entitling cancellation, not from the later cessation of influence.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation as to plots 407/1 and 409/1 under Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the High Court was set aside in part, the decree of the Civil Judge was restored, and the appellant obtained possession of the Lingadahalli properties with mesne profits, while the challenge to the Tadavalga properties remained barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraud affecting only the contents of a document renders the transaction voidable and limitation runs from discovery of the fraud, whereas a challenge to an instrument obtained by undue influence is governed by the limitation period running from the time the facts entitling cancellation became known.

---