Supreme Court of India
SANTOSH DEVIversusSUNDER
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 627
- Decided
- 1 May 2025
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B PARDIWALA
Holding
A general allegation of fraud without specific factual pleading does not satisfy the exemption criteria under Order VII Rule 6 or Section 17 of the Limitation Act, and therefore the suit remains barred by limitation.
Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Devi, filed a suit in 2012 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and related mutation, alleging that the deed was obtained through fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, a decision affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. The petitioner contended that the limitation period should be extended under Order VII Rule 6 of the CPC and Section 17 of the Limitation Act, claiming she was unaware of her right to sue due to fraud. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff bore the onus to plead specific facts of fraud and that a mere allegation of fraud without detailed particulars does not satisfy the exemption requirements; moreover, the fraud alleged related to the transaction itself does not fall within Section 17's scope. Consequently, the Court found no error in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the plaintiff’s allegation of fraud suffices to claim exemption from the limitation period under Order VII Rule 6 of the CPC.
- Whether Section 17 of the Limitation Act applies to the plaintiff’s case, i.e., whether she was kept out of knowledge of her right to sue by fraud.
- Whether the High Court erred in upholding the dismissal of the suit on limitation grounds.
Legislation cited
- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988s. 4
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VII Rule 6
- Limitation Act, 1963s. 17, s. 5
- Registration Act, 1908s. 60(2)
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court rightly dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner herein (plaintiff) affirming the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court which had upheld the decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation. Effect of fraud or mistake – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.6 – Grounds of exemption from limitation law – Petitioner filed suit seeking cancellation of sale deed on the ground that fraud was played upon her to sign the sale deed and thereby transfer the
Subjects
Section 17 of Limitation Act, 1963Order VII Rule 6 of CPCFraudSuit for cancellation of sale deedDismissal of suitLimitationExemption from limitationKept out of knowledge of right to sueBy means of fraudConcurrent findingsOnus of proofRegistered documentPresumed to be genuine
Judgment
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 156 : 2025 INSC 627
Santosh Devi
v.
Sunder
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12658 of 2025)
02 May 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court rightly dismissed the second appeal filed
by the petitioner herein (plaintiff) affirming the judgment passed
by the First Appellate Court which had upheld the decree passed
by the trial court dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.
Headnotes†
Limitation Act, 1963 – s.17 – Effect of fraud or mistake – Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.6 – Grounds of exemption
from limitation law – Petitioner filed suit seeking cancellation
of sale deed on the ground that fraud was played upon her to
sign the sale deed and thereby transfer the subject property –
Suit dismissed on the ground of limitation – Challenge to:
Held: The initial onus was on the plaintiff who had challenged
the sale deed – Fraud was alleged as a ground upon which the
plaintiff justified the institution of the suit long after the expiry of
the limitation period – Further, the requirement of Or.VII, r.6, CPC
is also clear – The plaint should show the ground upon which the
exemption from the normal period of limitation is claimed – It is not
the mere use of general words such as ‘fraud’ that can serve as the
foundation for the plea – Such expressions are quite ineffective to
give the legal basis in the absence of particular statements of fact
which alone can furnish the requisite basis for the action – Thus,
the fraud relating to the sale transaction as alleged itself would
not help the plaintiff in getting over the plea of limitation in this
case – Under/s.17, Limitation Act, the plaintiff should have been
kept out of knowledge of his right to sue by means of fraud – The
alleged fraud relating to the sale transaction itself has nothing to
do with the question viz., that the plaintiff had been kept out of
knowledge of her right to file a suit for cancellation of the sale
deed because of fraud – High Court committed no error in passing
the impugned judgment. [Paras 17-19, 21, 22]
* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 157
Santosh Devi v. Sunder
Case Law Cited
Janardhanam Prasad v. Ramdas (2007) 2 LJR 783; Prem Singh
and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. [2006] Supp. 1 SCR 692 : (2006) 5
SCC 353 – referred to.
Walling Ford v. Mutul Society (1880) 5 A.C. 685 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Limitation Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Section 17 of Limitation Act, 1963; Order VII Rule 6 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908; Fraud; Suit for cancellation of sale deed;
Dismissal of suit; Limitation; Exemption from the normal period
of limitation; Kept out of knowledge of right to sue; By means of
fraud; Concurrent findings; Onus of proof; Registered document;
Presumed to be genuine.
Case Arising From
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 12658 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 520 of 2020
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Karan Kapoor, Manik Kapoor, Ms. Srishti Singla, Shrey Kapoor.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. Delay condoned in filing and refiling the SLP.
2. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 23.7.2024
in Regular Second Appeal No. 520/2020 by which the High Court
dismissed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and
158 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
thereby affirmed the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate
Court affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court
dismissing the suit.
3. The petitioner is before us against the concurrent findings of three
Courts.
4. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner herein
instituted Civil Suit No.310-RBT of 2012 in the Court of the Additional
Civil Judge (SD), Ganaur for declaration with consequential,
mandatory as well as permanent injunction.
5. In the plaint, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration may
kindly be granted declaring the sale deed no.638 dated
26.05.2008 as well as mutation no. 5340 dt.29.08.2008
be set aside to the extent of 1/2 share executed in favour
of the defendant Sunder, who fraudulently, forcibly get
executed the sale dead and sanctioned mutation to the
extent of 1/2 share of the suit land in his favour.
It is, therefore further prayed that a decree for mandatory
injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff
against the defendant directing the defendant to get
executed and registered the sale deed as well as rectified
the mutation no. 5340 dt. 29.08.2008 to the extent of ½
share of the land detailed in para no.2 of the plaint in
favour of the plaintiff, which he got fraudulently, wrongly,
illegally got registered in his own favour against the sale
consideration already paid by the plaintiff to the vender, in
favour of the plaintiff without getting any sale consideration
and stamp and registration at his own risk and costs.
It is further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction
may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the
defendant restraining him from alienating any art of the suit
land detailed in para no.2 of the plaint, under the grab of
wrong illegal sale deed no. 638 dt. 26.05.08 and mutation
no. 5340 dt. 29.08.08 forcibly and illegally to any person
for all time to come.”
6. Insofar as the averments regarding the cause of action as pleaded
in the plaint is concerned, the same reads thus:-
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 159
Santosh Devi v. Sunder
“That the cause of action firstly secured to the plaintiff only
on 26.05.2008, the date of execution and registration of
the sale deed to the extent of ½ share of land in favour of
defendant out of the suit land. Secondly in March, 2010
when the plaintiff came to know about the above wrong,
illegal sale deed to the extent of ½ share in favour of the
defendant, and then on 19.09.2012 the date of serving the
legal notice through registered post upon the defendant,
and lastly on 08.10.2012, the date of last refusal by the
defendant to accede the genuine request of the plaintiff.”
7. The trial court framed the following issues for its consideration:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration
that the sale deed No.638 dated 26.5.2008 and its mutation
No.5340 dated 29.8.2008 are illegal, null and void to the
extent of 1⁄2 share as prayed for ? OPP.
2. Whether the defendant is liable to be directed to get
executed and registered the sale deed as well as rectified
the mutation No.5340 dated 29.8.2006(sic) to the extent
of 1⁄2 share of the land detailed in para No.2 of the plaint
in favour of plaintiff, as prayed for ? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable
in the present form ? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus-
standi to file the present suit ? OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with
clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from
the Court ? OPD.
7. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation ? OPD.
8. Whether the plaintiff has not affixed the ad-volerum
court fee, thus suit is liable to fail? OPD.”
8. It appears from the materials on record that the trial court essentially
dismissed the suit on the point of limitation. We may quote the
relevant findings recorded by the trial court in this regard:-
160 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“The relevant extract of his cross-examination is reproduced
here under :-
...Yaha Thik Hai Ki Registry Likhne Ke Bad Ram Parshad
Arjinawis Ne Hum Sabhi Ko Padkar Suna Di Thi Aur Sabi
Ne Thik Mankar Apne Apne Anguthe Dastak Kiye The…”
Similarly, the vendor of the impugned sale deed – Ex.PW.8
has deposed that he put his signature on the impugned
sale deed at the instance of plaintiff. The relevant extract
of his cross-examination is reproduced here under :-
“...Meine Bhimsain Ke Kehne Par Thik Mankar Apne
Sign Kiye The…”
Plaintiff himself has claimed in his cross-examination that
he put his signatures after reading last one and half line
which was pertaining to payment of the sale consideration.
Meaning thereby, plaintiff himself has also admitted that
he was present at the time of execution of the impugned
sale deed; put his signatures and appeared before Sub
Registrar. This deposition of plaintiff that he just read
last one and half line is not comprehendable as he is
an educated property dealer. Though, at this juncture,
the execution of impugned sale deed without payment
stood established yet, from the aforesaid discussion, it
is abundantly clear on file that factum of execution of
impugned sale deed to the extent of ½ share in favour
of defendant was in his notice/knowledge at the time
of execution of the impugned sale deed itself i.e. on
26.5.2009.”
9. The trial court relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the
case of Janardhanam Prasad vs. Ramdas , (2007) 2 LJR 783, for
the proposition that the period of limitation for the purpose of seeking
cancellation of sale deed would be from the date of registration of
the sale deed.
10. The suit ultimately came to be dismissed.
11. The first appeal filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed.
The First Appellate Court recorded the following findings:-
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 161
Santosh Devi v. Sunder
“20. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions
made by both sides. It is pertinent to note that a reading of
the impugned sale deed Ex.P18 reveals that the plaintiff is
also a signatory to the sale deed. It is also noteworthy that
the plaintiff admitted his signatures on the sale deed during
his cross-examination as PW.10. It is further significant
to note that PW.5 Ram Parshad, Deed Writer stated that
the sale deed was prepared by him as per instructions of
the parties and the contents of the same were read over
and explained to the parties who accepted them to be
correct and thereafter affixed their thumb impressions and
signatures on the same. It is also relevant to note that PW.7
Rameshwar Dass- Numberdar who is attesting witness
to the sale deed admitted during his cross-examination
that the contents of the sale deed were read over by the
Deed Writer before all the parties who accepted them to
be correct and thereafter affixed their thumb impressions
and signatures on the same. It is further worthwhile to
note that PW.8 Ajit Kumar-vendor has made a similar
statement in his cross-examination. It is also important
to note that the sale deed Ex.P18 is registered document
which bears endorsement of the Sub- Registrar that its
contents were read over and explained to the parties who
accepted them are to be correct and said endorsement
carries presumption of truth as per Sub Section (2) of
Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908. In these facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered
opinion that it is duly established that plaintiff was duly
aware about the execution and registration of the sale
deed Ex.P18 in his name and in the name of defendant
to the extent of half share each since its execution and
registration and plea of fraud taken by the plaintiff is not
tenable. Accordingly, the plaintiff could have challenged
the sale deed within three years from its registration i.e.
26.05.2008. However, the case in hand was filed on
12.10.2012. At this juncture, I may also observe that the
provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to suits. Therefore,
162 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the argument of plaintiff that he was not well and thereby
prevented by a sufficient cause from filing the suit within
prescribed time cannot be looked into. Consequently, the
suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation.
21. It is further imperative to note that even if it is believed
for the sake of arguments, that plaintiff paid the entire
sale consideration for purchasing the land which is
subject matter of the sale deed under challenge, it is duly
established as already discussed above that plaintiff was
aware of the fact that defendant was recorded owner in
possession of the land to the extent of half share since
the very beginning. Thus, when the plaintiff allowed the
defendant to get his name incorporated in the sale deed
as owner of half share of the land, the stand of plaintiff that
he is the absolute owner of the land because he paid the
entire sale consideration, is hit by Section 4 of the Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is also pertinent to
mention that the law laid down in Manoj Arora Vs. Mamta
Arora (supra) which is relied upon by the learned counsel
for the plaintiff does not apply to the present lis as in that
case the plaintiff had purchased the property in the name
of his wife and in these circumstances it was ruled that bar
of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act will not apply to
the claim of husband over the suit property. However, in
the instant case the plaintiff and defendant are not husband
and wife or otherwise closely related to each other.
22. In view of above discussion and peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present lis, the citations relied upon
by the plaintiff are distinguishable and not applicable to the
case in hand and no decree as prayed for can be passed
in favour of plaintiff. Consequently, the suit of plaintiff has
rightly been dismissed by the Trial Court. Resultantly, no
interference in this appeal is warranted and the appeal
is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. Trial Court record
along with copy of this Judgment be sent to Trial Court
for information. Appeal file be consigned to record room.”
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 163
Santosh Devi v. Sunder
12. The petitioner preferred second appeal before the High Court. The
High Court dismissed the second appeal holding as under:-
“6. A registered sale deed executed in favour of two
purchasers cannot be modified/rectified merely on account
of the fact that the payment has been made from the
plaintiff’s account, particularly, when they were working
together as the property brokers. Only they are aware
of the equation between them. In any case, the plaintiff
may have a right to recover the amount, if the respondent
has failed to pay his contribution. However, that will be
subject to the rendition of accounts between the plaintiff
and the respondents. As regards the second argument,
it would be noted that Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of
Civil Procedure,1908, provides for exemption arising out
of the Limitation Law. It does not provide for extending
the period of limitation or condonation in filing the suit. It
only suggests that the ground of exemption from limitation
should be specifically pleaded in the plaint. Order VII
Rule 6 does not provide a remedy, it merely lays down
a procedure.”
13. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner is here before
this Court with the present petition.
14. We heard Ms. Srishti Singla, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner at length.
15. The learned counsel pressed into service two submissions. The first
submission is with regard to Order VII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 (for short “the CPC”). The Order VII Rule 6 of CPC
reads thus:-
“7. PLAINT
6. Grounds of exemption from limitation law.—Where the
suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed
by the law of limitation, the plaint shall show the ground
upon which exemption from such law is claimed:
Provided that the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim
exemption from the law of limitation on any ground not
164 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with
the grounds set out in the plaint.”
16. The second submission is with respect to Section 17 of the Limitation
Act. Section 17 reads thus:-
“17. Effect of fraud or mistake.—(1) Where, in the case
of any suit or application for which a period of limitation
is prescribed by this Act,—
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the
defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or
application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any
such person as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences
of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of
the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed
from him;
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff
or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or
could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it, or in
the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the
applicant first had the means of producing the concealed
document or compelling its production:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit
to be instituted or application to be made to recover or
enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction
affecting, any property which—
(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable
consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud
and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have
reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable
consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the
mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have
reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 165
Santosh Devi v. Sunder
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been
purchased for valuable consideration by a person who
was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the
time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that
the document had been concealed.
(2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force,
prevented the execution of a decree or order within the
period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the
judgment-creditor made after the expiry of the said period
extend the period for execution of the decree or order:
Provided that such application is made within one year
from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation
of force, as the case may be.”
17. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the Courts below, we must
first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the
disputed document is a registered sale deed. It is not in dispute that
the petitioner has signed the sale deed. We are, therefore, guided by
the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine
if the same is registered, as held by this Court in Prem Singh and
Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353. The relevant
portion of the said decision reads as below:
“27. There is a presumption that a registered document
is validly executed. A registered document, therefore,
prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus,
would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the
presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not
been able to rebut the said presumption.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In view thereof, in the present case, the initial onus was on the
plaintiff, who had challenged the sale deed.
18. When fraud is alleged against the defendant, it is an acknowledged
rule of pleading that the plaintiff must set forth the particulars of the
fraud which he alleges. In the present case, fraud is alleged as a
ground upon which the plaintiff justifies the institution of the suit long
after the expiry of the period normally allowed for the institution of the
166 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
suit. Though no specific reference to the provisions of Section 17 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Limitation Act’) is made in the
plaint, it is manifest that the pleading proceeds upon the hypothesis
that the plaintiff had also contributed along with the defendant in
the purchase of the subject property and at the time of the sale,
the plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the sale consideration. In other
words, the fraud was played upon the plaintiff to sign the sale deed
and thereby transfer the subject property. The requirement of Order
VII Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, are clear. It is necessary that the
plaint should show the ground upon which the exemption from the
normal period of limitation is claimed. The question is whether the
plaint in this case fulfils the requirements of law. As observed by
Lord Selborne in Walling Ford vs. Mutul Society reported in (1880)
5 A.C. 685:
“With regard to fraud, if there be any principle which is
perfectly well settled, it is that general allegations however
strong be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient
even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court
ought to take notice.”
19. It is not the mere use of general words such as ‘fraud’ that can serve
as the foundation for the plea. Such expressions are quite ineffective
to give the legal basis in the absence of particular statements of fact
which alone can furnish the requisite basis for the action.
20. Order VII Rule 6 uses the words “the plaint shall show the ground
upon which exemption from such law is claimed”. The exemption
provided under Sections 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act are based on
certain facts and events. Section 17, with which we are concerned,
provides for a fresh period of limitation, which is founded on certain
facts.
21. The matter can also be looked at from a different angle. Assuming for
the moment that the defendant was a party to the fraud as alleged
relating to the sale transaction, whether the same by itself is sufficient
to save limitation under Section 17 of the Limitation Act. We are of
the opinion that the fraud relating to the sale transaction as alleged
itself would not help the plaintiff in getting over the plea of limitation
in this case. As already discussed, under Section 17 of the Limitation
Act, the plaintiff should have been kept out of knowledge of his right
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 167
Santosh Devi v. Sunder
to sue by means of fraud. We are of the opinion that the alleged
fraud relating to the sale transaction itself has nothing to do with the
question viz., that the plaintiff had been kept out of knowledge of his
right to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed because of fraud.
22. In overall view of the matter, we are of the view that no error, not to
speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by
the High Court in passing the impugned judgment and order.
23. The Special Leave Petition stands, accordingly, dismissed.
24. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Special Leave Petition dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 17 of Limitation Act, 1963"Sign in to search