Summary
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of three courts dismissing as time-barred a suit to set aside a registered sale deed to the extent of a half share, holding that a plaintiff who relies on fraud to escape limitation must plead its particulars as Order VII Rule 6 CPC requires, and that an alleged fraud in the sale transaction itself does not attract Section 17 of the Limitation Act unless the plaintiff was kept out of knowledge of his right to sue by that fraud.
Issues
- On whom the onus lies when a registered sale deed signed by the plaintiff is challenged as fraudulent.
- Whether general allegations of fraud in the plaint satisfy Order VII Rule 6 CPC so as to claim exemption from the law of limitation.
- Whether fraud alleged in relation to the sale transaction itself is sufficient to postpone the commencement of limitation under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Where a suit is instituted after the prescribed period the plaint must show the ground on which exemption from the law of limitation is claimed. The rule is procedural and does not itself extend or condone limitation; a bare use of the word 'fraud' without particular statements of fact does not satisfy it. (¶¶ 12, 15, 18, 19, 20)
- Section 17, Limitation Act, 1963Provides a fresh starting point for limitation where the suit is based on the defendant's fraud or knowledge of the right is concealed by fraud. The Court held that the plaintiff must have been kept out of knowledge of his right to sue by fraud; fraud relating to the sale transaction itself does not meet this requirement. (¶¶ 16, 18, 20, 21)
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963Noted, in the first appellate court's findings extracted by the Court, as not applying to suits, so that the plaintiff's plea of illness could not be considered to condone the delay. (¶ 11)
Held
- A registered document is presumed to have been validly executed and is prima facie valid; the onus is on the person who seeks to rebut that presumption. Since the petitioner had admittedly signed the registered sale deed he challenged, the initial onus lay on him. (¶ 17)
- When fraud is alleged, the plaintiff must set out its particulars. Where fraud is the ground on which the plaintiff justifies suing long after the ordinary period, Order VII Rule 6 CPC requires the plaint to show the ground on which exemption is claimed; general allegations, however strongly worded, are insufficient to amount to an averment of fraud, and the mere use of words such as 'fraud' cannot found the plea in the absence of particular statements of fact. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- The exemptions in Sections 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act rest on specific facts and events, and Section 17 provides a fresh period of limitation founded on such facts. Even assuming the defendant was party to the alleged fraud in the sale transaction, that would not save limitation: under Section 17 the plaintiff must have been kept out of knowledge of his right to sue by fraud, and fraud in the transaction itself has nothing to do with whether the plaintiff was kept from knowing of his right to sue for cancellation of the deed. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- No error, let alone an error of law, was committed by the High Court in affirming the dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Special Leave Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.