Void deed by mistaken execution requires factual finding before limitation can be applied to a suit for possession and cancellation.

A deed signed under a false belief as to its true character was treated as wholly inoperative, because the apparent execution did not reflect real consent. On that basis, the limitation question under Article 91 could not be decided until the true circumstances of execution were first determined. The courts below had proceeded on the assumption that the suit necessarily required cancellation of the sale deed, but the higher court held that assumption could not stand without a factual finding on how the instrument was signed. The matter was therefore remanded for rehearing and for a finding on execution before the limitation issue was addressed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of possession and cancellation of the sale deed was barred by limitation under Article 91 of the first Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, and whether a deed executed under a mistaken belief as to its true character was void ab initio so as to avoid the need for prior cancellation.

Analysis: The claim to several plots was either abandoned or already barred, leaving only the remaining plots in issue. The lower courts had treated the suit as one requiring cancellation of the sale deed and had applied Article 91. The decisive question was whether, on the finding that the plaintiffs executed the instrument believing it to be a different document, there was in law any real execution or consent at all. The Court held that where a person signs a deed under a false representation of its nature, the act is not merely voidable but wholly inoperative, so the instrument cannot be treated as a valid execution by that person. On that footing, the limitation principle applied by the courts below could not be accepted without first determining the true circumstances in which the deed was signed.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the lower Appellate Court for a rehearing and a finding on the circumstances of execution before deciding the limitation issue.

---