Sham sale deed and Article 91 limitation: void instruments need not be first set aside, so the suit was not time-barred.

A sale deed is sham and nominal, and therefore ineffective in law, where the recited consideration is not proved, possession is never delivered, the original deed remains with the transferor, and surrounding circumstances show no intention to effect a genuine transfer. Article 91 of the Limitation Act applies only to voidable instruments that must first be cancelled or set aside; it does not govern a void, sham, or inoperative document. On that basis, a suit challenging such an instrument is not barred by Article 91 and proceeds on the limitation applicable to the substantive relief sought.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned sale deed was a real conveyance intended to take effect or was merely sham and nominal; (ii) Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned sale deed was a real conveyance intended to take effect or was merely sham and nominal.

Analysis: The consideration recited in the deed was not satisfactorily proved, the evidence showed that possession was never delivered to the transferee, and the original document remained with the transferor. The surrounding circumstances, including the contemporaneous unregistered hypothecation bond, indicated that the sale deed was not intended to operate as a genuine transfer.

Conclusion: The deed was sham and nominal and did not take effect.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Analysis: Article 91 applies only where a document is voidable and must be cancelled or set aside. Where the instrument is void, sham, or inoperative, no prior suit for cancellation is required and the suit for substantive relief is governed by the limitation applicable to such relief, not by Article 91. On the finding that the deed was void and inoperative, the suit was not time-barred.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal could not succeed because the document was found to be ineffective in law and the challenge to the suit on limitation failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act applies only to voidable instruments that must first be set aside; it does not apply to a sham, nominal, void, or inoperative instrument.

---