Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23 Mr. Lohia has submitted that the case of the Plaintiff in the plaint is that the right to sue first accrued in favour of the Plaintiff so IAL.2566.22a wt....doc as to seek cancellation of the impugned Conveyance Deeds as the Defendants infringed upon the rights of the Plaintiff of settled possession and of ownership of the suit properties. He has submitted that the plea for possession sought in the plaint can be of no assistance to the Plaintiff as much as the plea of possession is consequential upon the relief of cancellation/void ab initio as the case may be. The Plaintiff cannot seek possession if the Plaintiff fails to seek cancellation/declaration that the Conveyance Deeds are void ab initio. Thus, if the primary relief/main cause of action in respect of contract being void/liable to be cancelled is barred by limitation the consequential relief can never be granted and cannot save limitation. 24 Mr. Lohia has submitted that the Plaintiff cannot rely upon his contention that the consideration was not paid by Defendant Nos.1 to 7 and such out right rejection arose in November, 2021, which consideration was promised under the Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.11.2008. He has submitted that under said Memorandum of Understanding, it was clearly contemplated that balance payment would be made within 11 months from the execution of Memorandum of Understanding. Thus, the cause action on the Memorandum of Understanding if any, arose post 11 months from execution. He has accordingly submitted that there is no merit in the Plaintiff's plaint on IAL.2566.22a wt....doc when the cause of action arose. The Suit is clearly barred by the law of limitation.

27 Mr. Khandeparkar has further submitted that the Plaintiff is deemed to have knowledge of the Deeds of Conveyance at least since their registration on 20.02.2014 as they are registered documents, IAL.2566.22a wt....doc having regard to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Limitation Act. He has accordingly submitted that the captioned suit is clearly barred by the law of limitation and the plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 28 Mr. Chetan Kapadia, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has submitted that from a true and correct reading of the plaint as a whole, it is clear that the captioned Suit has been filed on the cause of action of misrepresentation by Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 to the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.13, 14 and 15 that the documents executed in 2013 were in fact fresh Memorandum of Understanding and documents in aid thereof in furtherance of Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.12.2008. The purported Deeds of Conveyance dated 31.12.2013 are accordingly void and non est factum. Further cause of action in the plaint is that the Deeds of Conveyance are void as they are executed in violation of an injunction order dated 26.11.1982 passed by this Court in Suit No.359 of 1980, which was later transferred to the City Civil Court. Hence, the cause of action in the Suit being one for primary relief of possession and for relief of adjudgment that the Deeds of Conveyance are void ab initio and other ancillary reliefs based on title.

8) Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh, 1990 Supp SCC 216.

9) Naranjan Singh v. Ranjit Singh, 2015 SCC OnLine 455.

33 Mr. Kapadia has relied upon aforesaid decisions in support of his submission that where a man who cannot read/illiterate person IAL.2566.22a wt....doc has a written contract/deed falsely read once to him and he executes the deed relying on the false reading as being the true substance of the transaction, his act is wholly void. In other words the documents would be invalid not merely on the ground of fraud, where fraud exists but on the ground that the mind of the signer did not accompany the signature. In other words, that he never intended to sign, and therefore in contemplation of law never did sign, the contract to which his name is appended. He has submitted that the Courts have held that in such case the alleged document/deed was no deed and the deed being void ab initio did not require to be set aside or cancelled. 34 Mr. Kapadia has also made submissions on the substantive law i.e. on the principle of a transaction being illegal and void if in violation of an injunction. He has in support of this submission relied upon the following authorities :

45 In Dularia Devi (supra) the Plaintiff believed that she was executing a gift deed in favour of her daughter, but in fact, the property was sold. Relying upon the decision in Ningawwa (supra) the Supreme Court held that where there is fraud with regard to the character of the documents, the contract is void. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that if the fraud is not on character, but only with regard to the contents, then it would only be voidable. The learned IAL.2566.22a wt....doc Counsel have submitted that the ratio of this judgment applies to the facts of the present case, as here there is no fraud with regard to the character of the documents. They have accordingly submitted that at the highest, assuming the Plaintiff's case of fraud with regard to the contents of the document is correct, it is well settled law that for the Plaintiff to recover possession of property, the Plaintiff must seek cancellation of the instrument under which the property was transferred viz. the Deeds of Conveyance in the present case i.e. within the period of three years from the knowledge of the fraud as provided in Article 59 of the Limitation Act. At the very latest three years run from 14.02.2017 i.e. by 15.02.2020 and the suit filed in December, 2021 is accordingly barred by limitation. 46 The learned Counsel have thereafter dealt with the Plaintiff's contention that the Conveyance Deeds are void ab initio as they were executed in violation of the order of injunction dated 26.11.1982. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respective Defendants that the case of the Plaintiff is entirely misconceived as the order of injunction was passed in a Suit filed by the predecessor of Defendant Nos.10 to 12 and that the order of injunction was in favour of Defendant Nos.10 to 12 and did not operate against them. Hence there is no embargo on the Defendant Nos.10 to 12 or any of their IAL.2566.22a wt....doc nominees from entering into the Conveyance Deeds with the Plaintiff. They have submitted that even assuming that the order of injunction applied, a sale in violation of an order of injunction is not void ab initio. This has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Thompson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors, reported in 2013 5 SCC 397 at paragraph 53. They have submitted that the judgments relied by the Plaintiff to the contrary have been either impliedly or expressly overruled by the said decision of the Supreme Court.