1921 (5) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Court distinguishes between void and voidable deeds in relation to limitation period

The Court held that since the deed was deemed void ab initio due to fraud, Article 120 applied instead of Article 95, allowing the suit to proceed within ... - Issues:1. Application of Article 95 of the Indian Limitation Act to a suit for relief on the ground of fraud.2. Interpretation of whether the deed in question was void or voidable.3. Applicability of Article 120 of the Limitation Act in cases where the instrument is deemed void ab initio.Analysis:Issue 1: Application of Article 95 of the Indian Limitation ActThe judgment revolves around the dismissal of a suit as time-barred under Art. 95 of the Indian Limitation Act. The Plaintiff sought relief based on alleged fraud in a property transaction. The Court examined whether the relief sought was solely a declaration of entitlement to a sum of money or also included setting aside a void deed. The Court held that since the deed was deemed void ab initio due to fraud, Art. 120 applied instead of Art. 95. This decision allowed the suit to proceed as it was brought within the applicable limitation period.Issue 2: Interpretation of Void or Voidable DeedThe Court analyzed whether the deed in question was void or voidable. The Plaintiff contended that the deed was void as it was executed under fraudulent inducement, leading to a lack of intention on her part. The Court accepted this argument, emphasizing that if the Plaintiff could establish the deed was null and void ab initio, the relief sought would be a declaration of entitlement to the money, not setting aside the deed. This distinction influenced the application of the relevant limitation period under Art. 120.Issue 3: Applicability of Article 120 in Void Deed CasesThe judgment clarified that in cases where an instrument is considered void ab initio, such as due to fraud or lack of intent, Art. 120 of the Limitation Act applies instead of Art. 95. This distinction is crucial as it impacts the limitation period within which a suit must be filed. By deeming the deed void, the Court determined that the Plaintiff's claim for a declaration of entitlement to the money was the primary relief sought, allowing the suit to proceed within the prescribed limitation period.The judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between void and voidable instruments in fraud-related cases and the corresponding application of the appropriate limitation articles. It emphasizes the need for courts to assess the nature of the deed in question to determine the relief sought and the corresponding limitation period for filing suits.