Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12) Mr. Kumbhat would further submit that in Suit governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, that the date of knowledge about execution of impugned instrument is important. That it is Plaintiff 's case that the father has alienated the property on the misrepresentation that he was the sole owner. That the Suit is not for enforcement of a right in joint family property for being governed by Article 109 of the Limitation Act. According to the Plaintiffs, the entire act of execution of Declaration, Deeds of Apartment and Deeds of Transfer are void as the same are performed on a misrepresentation that the father was the sole owner. That Article 109 of the Limitation Act applies only when joint family property is alienated by Karta of the family. That father has not executed the impugned instrument in his capacity as Karta. That therefore the Suit would be governed by the provisions of Article 59 of the Limitation Act. That the argument of possession being handed over on the date of execution of Deeds of Apartment is fallacious as Defendant Nos.2 to 31 were already tenants in occupation of their respective premises and that therefore there was no question of handing over possession of any of the units. In support of his contention that suit can be filed challenging an instrument of transfer of property within ______________________________________________________________________________ Friday, 17 October, 2025 Neeta SawanT Int.appln-1949-2025-FC three years of acquisition of knowledge of execution of instrument, Mr. Kumbhat would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Rahim and Others Versus. S.K. Abdul Zabar and Others4. He would rely upon judgment of this Court in Vijay Shridhar Ghare Versus. Ashok Narayan Shinde5 in support of his contention that Articles 109 and 110 of the Limitation Act come into play only when suit is filed for enforcement of right by a member of joint family. That in the present case, Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the redevelopment process undertaken by Defendant Nos.1 to 31 by relying upon Declaration, Deeds of Apartment and Deeds of Transfer which are ex-facie void. That the Suit is not for enforcement of share in the suit property and that therefore provisions of Articles 109 and 110 of the Limitation Act have no application to the present case. He would also rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Versus. Regency Mahavir Properties and Others. 6 He would submit that the issue of limitation would otherwise be a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at this stage of the suit, before leading evidence. He would submit that the issue of limitation can be framed and decided by the Court while deciding the Suit. He would therefore pray for rejection of the Application.

24) Reverting to the main controversy at hand about the exact Article of Limitation Act by which the Suit is governed, careful perusal of the provisions of Article 109 of the Limitation Act would indicate that the said provision is made for affording an extended period of limitation when alienation is of ancestral property. Otherwise, the suits for setting aside an instrument of alienation would otherwise be governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, for which short period of three years is prescribed for filing of a Suit. However, for conserving and protecting ancestral properties being alienated by depriving share to rightful co-parceners, a special and extended period of limitation is prescribed by Article 109 of the Limitation Act. If a son or daughter believes that his/her share in the ancestral property is unauthorisedly sold by the father, an extended period of 12 years is prescribed for filing the suit challenging such alienation. Another benevolent provision is made with reference to the time from which limitation period begins to run. In suits governed by Article 109, the suit need not be filed within 12 years of date of execution of the instrument of alienation. The suit can be filed within 12 years from the date on which the alienee takes possession of the alienated property. Thus, Article 109 is a special benevolent provision made to protect shares of property of members of Hindu undivided families by providing extended period of limitation of 12 years, as well as permitting filing of suit within 12 years of date taking over of possession by alienee. On the other hand, for filing of suit ______________________________________________________________________________ Friday, 17 October, 2025 Neeta SawanT Int.appln-1949-2025-FC to set aside any other alienation (not being alienation of ancestral property by father), shorter period of limitation of three years is prescribed.

31. The Plaintiffs state that the father of Plaintiffs has not caused the alleged alienation either for any pious purposes or for discharging any debts of joint family.

(emphasis and underlining added)

27) The above pleadings would leave no manner of doubt that the Suit has been filed by children for setting aside alienation of alleged ancestral property by their father. The Suit would therefore be governed by the provisions of Article 109 of the Limitation Act. As observed above, Article 109 of the Limitation Act carves out an exception to ______________________________________________________________________________ Friday, 17 October, 2025 Neeta SawanT Int.appln-1949-2025-FC Article 59 by providing extended period of limitation when alienation is by father of the ancestral property. Otherwise, for setting aside every other instrument, the period of limitation would only be three years. Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to take benefit of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which has no application to the present case, for the purpose of taking benefit of pleaded date of acquisition of knowledge of execution of impugned instruments.

28) Faced with the situation that the Plaint contains express averments that the father has alienated the ancestral property in which Plaintiffs have a share, Mr. Kumbhat has attempted to salvage the situation by contending that Article 109 of the Limitation Act applies only when joint family property is alienated by Karta of the family and that father in the present case has not executed the impugned instrument in his capacity as Karta. I am unable to agree. Article 109 does not use the word 'Karta'. It does not restrict its application only to a situation where the father does the act of alienation in his capacity as Karta. Article 109 being a benevolent provision aimed at prescribing an extended period of limitation, its application cannot be restricted by reading into it the word 'Karta' which is not expressed used therein. If the Legislature intended to restrict application of extended period of limitation only to cases where alienation is by father in his capacity as Karta, it would have expressly provided so. If contention of Mr. Kumbhat is accepted, it would restrict the application of benevolent provision to only those cases where the alienation can be proved in capacity of father as Karta. In all cases, where the alienation is by father not in his capacity as Karta, the normal period of limitation of 3 years under Article 59 would be applicable. The extended period of limitation would then have to be applied only in restrictive cases. It is a well- established principle of statutory interpretation that adding words that ______________________________________________________________________________ Friday, 17 October, 2025 Neeta SawanT Int.appln-1949-2025-FC would create a more restrictive meaning than intended by the legislature should be avoided. The contention on behalf of Plaintiffs about non- application of Article 109 of Limitation Act on account of alienation by father being not in his capacity as Karta is stated to be rejected.