Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the suit for declaration that the plaintiff was the absolute owner and that the registered sale deed did not bind her was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The suit sought avoidance or cancellation of a registered sale deed. The plaintiff had knowledge of the document long before the institution of the suit, and a previous suit on the same subject had been withdrawn. In such a case, the relevant limitation is three years from the date when the right to seek cancellation first accrues or the document becomes known. A duly registered instrument continues to operate and bind the parties until it is avoided or cancelled by a proper declaration. The plea that the document was void was not enough to displace the need for such relief, and no finding had been recorded to establish invalidity under the pleaded legal foundation.
Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the dismissal by the courts below was .
Final Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to relief because the challenge to the sale deed was instituted beyond the prescribed period and the registered document remained operative until set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A suit seeking to avoid or cancel a registered instrument must be brought within the prescribed limitation period from the date of knowledge or accrual of the right to sue, and the instrument remains binding until it is set aside by a competent declaration.