Limitation for challenging a registered sale deed barred the suit where knowledge existed from inception.

A suit challenging a registered sale deed was held to be time-barred because the plaintiffs were witnesses to the 2010 execution and obtained a certified copy in the same year, establishing knowledge from inception. In a claim for cancellation or a declaration that a registered instrument is void, Article 59 of the Limitation Act requires filing within three years from when the instrument becomes known; a suit filed in 2016 was therefore beyond limitation. The Court also treated limitation as a pure legal issue that could be decided without oral evidence, and the plaint was liable to rejection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit challenging the registered sale deed was barred by limitation and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected.

Analysis: The sale deed was executed in 2010, the plaintiffs were witnesses to it and had obtained a certified copy in the same year, so knowledge of the transaction was established from inception. In a suit seeking cancellation or declaration that a registered sale deed is void, the prescribed period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act is three years from the date when the instrument becomes known. The suit filed in 2016 was therefore beyond time. The Court also treated the limitation objection as a pure legal issue capable of being decided without oral evidence.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the plaint was liable to rejection.

---