https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303024 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. en-us Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2022 20:59:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303024 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303024