Limitation for cancellation of sale deeds: Article 59 applies where a registered instrument is challenged as voidable or fraudulent.

A suit challenging a sale deed said to have been executed by a minor was held to fall under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, because that provision governs suits for cancellation of voidable instruments, including claims based on fraud. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act was noted to permit discretionary cancellation of both void and voidable documents, but a plea that an instrument is void does not by itself exclude limitation. A registered document also carries a presumption of valid execution, which the challenger must rebut. On the facts found, the plaintiff failed to sue within the relevant period, and the suit was barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit challenging a sale deed allegedly executed by a minor was governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Article 59 applies to suits seeking cancellation of instruments that are voidable, including cases founded on fraud. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 covers both void and voidable instruments and provides a discretionary remedy of cancellation. Limitation under the Limitation Act is not excluded merely because a transaction is described as void; a suit assailing such an instrument may still be governed by the prescribed limitation period. A registered document carries a presumption of valid execution, and the burden lies on the party attacking it to rebut that presumption. On the facts found, the plaintiff did not sue within the relevant limitation period.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and Article 59 applied; the dismissal of the suit by the trial court was restored.

---