Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that in a composite suit for cancellation of deed and recovery of possession the period of limitation must be adjudged from the primary relief of cancellation which is 3 years and not the ancillary relief of possession that is 12 years. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Rajeev Gupta & Ors v. Prashant Garg & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Rajeev Gupta & Ors v. Prashant Garg & Ors. (2025) Case?   

• On 17th October 1951, Dr. Babu Ram Garg executed a will bequeathing House No. 49/1, Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar to his two sons - Ishwar Chand and Dr. Karam Chand, while the third son Ramesh Chand received a pharmacy business and Rs. 5,000. 
• In the year 1956, a family settlement resulted in mutations in the names of Leelawati (likely Ishwar Chand's wife) and Ramesh Chand for the suit property, with other properties being allotted to Dr. Karam Chand. 
• After Ishwar Chand's death in 1984, his wife Leelawati filed a suit against Ramesh Chand seeking declaration of ownership of the western portion of the property, which was decreed by compromise on 30th May 1987. 
• Dr. Karam Chand filed another suit in 1992 against Ramesh Chand and Ishwar Chand's heirs seeking to restrain them from alienating the property, during which an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 15th June 1992. 
• During the pendency of this second suit, Ramesh Chand executed two sale deeds on 16th June 1992 and 29th June 1992, in favor of the appellants for Rs. 80,000, which were duly registered on 17th June 1992 and 30th June 1992 respectively. 
• A compromise was reached between Dr. Karam Chand and Ishwar Chand's heirs on 28th September 1992, and later between Dr. Karam Chand and Ramesh Chand. 
• In 1997, a mutation occurred in revenue records in favor of the appellants. 
• Ramesh Chand passed away in 2002. 
• On 25th February 2003, Dr. Karam Chand and his son filed a suit against the appellants seeking cancellation of the sale deeds, recovery of possession, and injunction. 
• A compromise was eventually reached between the plaintiffs and Ramesh Chand's legal heirs on 28th January 2008, where the latter accepted that Ramesh Chand was merely in permissive possession and had no right to execute sale deeds. 
• The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, which was upheld by the High Court on 21st September 2021, leading to the current appeal. 
• Verdicts of Lower Courts: 
  • Trial Court (25th January 2015): Dismissed the suit - found that plaintiffs failed to prove the will's execution, the suit was barred by limitation (filed in 2003 for deeds executed in 1992), and plaintiffs couldn't prove ownership. 
  • First Appellate Court (4th March 2017): Allowed the appeal and decreed the suit - held that the will was valid, Ramesh Chand never owned the property making his sale deeds void, doctrine of lis pendens applied, and the 12-year limitation period was applicable. 
  • High Court (21st September 2021): Confirmed the first appellate court's decision - ruled that sale deeds were void due to lis pendens, 12-year limitation period applied, and the will's execution was already proven in previous proceedings.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Period of Limitation in case of composite suit filed for cancellation of sale deed and possession  
  • In composite suits for cancellation of sale deed and recovery of possession, the primary relief determines the limitation period (3 years for cancellation, not 12 years for possession). 
  • Article 58 of the Limitation Act uses "first" to signify that limitation begins when the right to sue first accrues, not when the plaintiff chooses to act. 
  • Suits seeking cancellation of instruments are governed by Article 59, with a 3-year limitation period from when the plaintiff first gained knowledge of the instrument. 
  • In this case, cancellation was deemed the primary relief with recovery of possession being ancillary. 
  • The registered sale deeds required cancellation before possession could be sought; they weren't "sham and inoperative" documents that could be ignored. 
  • The plaintiffs had both constructive and actual knowledge of the property transfer during or soon after the second suit in 1992. 
  • The plaintiffs' right to sue first accrued when the appellants took possession after the registered sale deeds were executed in June 1992. 
  • Since the suit was only instituted in 2003 (11 years later), it was "hopelessly barred by limitation" under the 3-year rule. 
  • The Supreme Court thus held that the trial court was correct in dismissing the suit on grounds of limitation. 
• The next issue that the Court had to determine was whether the will that stood admitted in the previous suit was no longer required to be proved. 
  • A will must be proven according to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, even when not disputed by the opposing party, as established in Ramesh Verma v. Lajesh Saxena. 
  • The first appellate court incorrectly applied res judicata regarding acceptance of the will, failing to recognize that the appellants were not parties to the previous suits. 
  • The appellants cannot be bound by any admission or acceptance of the will made by their predecessor-in-interest in previous proceedings. 
  • The appellants themselves never made any admission accepting the will's validity. 
  • The plaintiffs' title to the disputed property could not be legally traced to Dr. Babu Ram Garg's will due to these evidentiary failings. 
• The last issue that the Court considered was whether the first appellate Court was right in decreeing the suit without the plaintiffs seeking the relief of declaration/ cancellation.  
  • According to Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008), when a plaintiff's title is disputed but they're in possession, they must sue for declaration of title and injunction; if not in possession, they must sue for declaration, possession, and injunction. 
  • Sopanrao v. Syed Mehmood (2019) reaffirmed that in suits for possession based on title, plaintiffs must prove ownership and seek a declaration of title. 
  • When Ramesh Chand compromised with Dr. Karam Chand, he had already transferred the property to appellants through registered sale deeds. 
  • The plaintiffs knew about the sale deeds but failed to bring this to the trial court's notice during the second suit. 
  • The compromise decrees from previous suits cannot bind the appellants, who were not parties to those proceedings. 
  • Since appellants objected to the will's validity, plaintiffs were legally required to prove the will according to law, which they failed to do. 
  • The plaintiffs gave up their cancellation claim in the trial court, and their later attempt to add a declaration prayer was rejected by the High Court. 
  • The first appellate court acted illegally by granting possession without there being any decree for declaration of rights or cancellation of deeds. 
  • The plaint was considered "incurably defective" at the appellate stage, making it impossible to grant relief to the plaintiffs. 

What is the Relief of Cancellation and Limitation for the Same? 

• Cancellation of Instruments is provided from Section 31 to 33 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). 
• Cancellation of instruments means the nullification of a written document which is proof of a transaction between the parties that are part of the transaction. 
• If there is an instrument, which is void or voidable due to some reason and a party to such an instrument has enough reasons to believe that the said instrument if not cancelled may cause serious injury to him, then such a person can file a suit with regards to the cancellation of such instrument. 
• Section 31 - When cancellation may be ordered - 
  • Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. 
  • If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation. 
• Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) provides for period of limitation for filing a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree. 
  • The period of limitation provided is three years. 
  • The time period from which the limitation will begin to run is when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him