Article 65, Not Article 59, Governs Suits Challenging Void Transactions — No Need to Cancel a Document That Never Had Legal Existence: Supreme Court Clarifies

“A Suit for Possession Based on Title Can Be Filed Within 12 Years — Article 59 Has No Role Where Sale Deed Is Void Ab Initio”:  In a pivotal ruling clarifying the interplay between void transactions and limitation law, the Supreme Court  definitively held that Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — which provides a 12-year limitation for suits for possession based on title — applies to cases involving void documents, and not Article 59 which applies only to voidable instruments that must be cancelled.

The Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan categorically declared: “Where a sale deed is void ab initio — for example, due to impersonation or absence of consideration — it is a legal nullity and does not require cancellation. Article 65 governs such cases, not Article 59.”

This pronouncement clears the air on a frequently litigated question: Which article applies when a person not party to a forged or fraudulent transaction seeks possession of land claiming the document is void?

Sale Deed Alleged to Be Forged and Without Consideration — Plaintiff Sought Joint Possession, Not Cancellation

The litigation arose from a suit filed in 1984 by Rasali, who claimed a 1/3rd share in agricultural land in Haryana, and challenged a 1973 registered sale deed allegedly executed by her and her brother Ram Saran in favour of Shanti Devi. She asserted that she never executed the deed, her thumb impression was forged, and she had received no consideration.

She did not seek cancellation of the deed, but rather joint possession of the property, contending the sale was void, and the defendant's possession was unauthorised.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit as time-barred, holding that it ought to have been filed within three years under Article 59. However, the First Appellate Court applied Article 65 and decreed the suit. The High Court, while affirming the decree, erroneously endorsed the application of Article 59 but found the suit to be within time even under it.

The Supreme Court decisively corrected the legal approach: “The High Court was not right in holding that Article 59 applied. The suit was one for possession based on title and the sale deed being void, it did not require cancellation. Article 65 clearly applied.”

“A Void Instrument Is a Legal Nullity — Plaintiff Can Ignore It and Seek Possession Based on Title”

Explaining the distinction between void and voidable instruments, the Court observed:

“Article 59 applies only when a party seeks to cancel a voidable instrument — one that is valid on its face but vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation as to contents. But a void document — forged, impersonated, or executed without authority — does not require cancellation at all.”

The Court relied heavily on prior decisions such as Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006), State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar (2000), and Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman (2025), where it was consistently held that a void document can be ignored, and the plaintiff may proceed directly with a suit for possession.

In its words:

“When a document is void for want of execution or consideration, the cause of action is not to set aside the deed — it is to reclaim possession based on rightful ownership. Such suits fall squarely under Article 65.”

Fraud Went to the Character of the Document — Not Its Contents — Making the Transaction Void, Not Voidable

The Court also made a crucial legal distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation as to character versus contents of a document. Referring to Ningawwa v. Byrappa (1968), the bench reiterated: “Fraud as to the character of the document — such as impersonation or forgery — makes the document void. But fraud as to the contents may make it voidable. Only in the latter case is Article 59 attracted.”

In the present case, the plaintiff alleged that the sale deed bore a forged thumb impression, and expert evidence confirmed the same. There was no execution, no payment of consideration, and no witness who credibly supported the defendant’s version. Hence, the transaction was found to be void ab initio, not merely voidable.

“Plaintiff Not Party to the Deed Need Not Cancel It — Merely Declaring It Void Is Enough”: Court Applies Correct Limitation Rule

The Court emphasized that where the plaintiff is not a party to the impugned document (or is not the executant), there is no requirement to seek cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Instead, the plaintiff may merely plead that the deed is invalid and not binding.

“It is logically impossible for a person who never signed or executed a deed to be required to cancel it. Such a person can seek possession based on title and treat the document as non-existent.”

The Court clarified that this is not a mere procedural technicality, but a substantive point of law, and suits like the one before it are fundamentally governed by Article 65, not Article 59.

Suit Filed Within 12 Years of Sale Deed — Hence Not Barred Under Article 65

The defendant had contended that the plaintiff should have filed the suit within three years from the date of registration of the sale deed (14.06.1973). But the Court explained:

“Under Article 65, limitation begins from the date the possession becomes adverse. Even if we take 14.06.1973 as that date, the suit filed on 28.02.1984 is within 12 years.”

Therefore, regardless of whether the date of execution or the date of knowledge is considered, the suit was timely under Article 65.

Conclusion: Landmark Ruling Reaffirms Article 65 as Governing Rule for Possession Suits Involving Void Transactions

The Supreme Court’s judgment delivers much-needed clarity on a contentious legal issue and sets a binding precedent. It affirms the following core principles:

“Where a plaintiff seeks possession based on title and challenges a transaction as void ab initio, the suit is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Article 59 is inapplicable unless the plaintiff is seeking to set aside a voidable document he himself executed.”

This distinction is now unequivocally settled. The ruling is a vital precedent for land disputes, particularly in rural areas where fraudulent and forged transactions are frequent, and will guide courts, lawyers, and litigants on how to structure suits and understand limitation law correctly.

Date of Decision: 12th September, 2025