https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309639 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 the limitation period. The distinction between void and voidable deeds influenced the application of the relevant limitation period under Article 120. The judgment clarified that in cases where an instrument is considered void ab initio, such as due to fraud, Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies instead of Article 95, impacting the limitation period for filing suits. This distinction is crucial in fraud-related cases to determine the relief sought and the corresponding limitation period. en-us Wed, 04 May 1921 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309639 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 the limitation period. The distinction between void and voidable deeds influenced the application of the relevant limitation period under Article 120. The judgment clarified that in cases where an instrument is considered void ab initio, such as due to fraud, Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies instead of Article 95, impacting the limitation period for filing suits. This distinction is crucial in fraud-related cases to determine the relief sought and the corresponding limitation period. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 May 1921 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309639