Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4) The suit was not maintainable as the appellants had not sought for any declaration that the partition deed was void.

5) The contention of the appellants that they came to know about the fraud in 1988 was not correct and thus the suit was barred by limitation.

6) The holder of the Power of Attorney executed by defendant No.8 having received the benefit of the partition, the appellants were estopped and precluded from challenging the same.

ii) The averments made in the 1982 suit being fraught with the elements of fraud and mis-representation, no reliance could have been placed thereupon nor the plaintiffs-appellants could be said to have voluntarily made admissions in the said pleading.

iii) As the deed of partition and the deed of relinquishment were void ab initio being hit by Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, it was not necessary to pray for any relief for setting aside the said deeds.

iv) The partition deeds as also the deed of relinquishment were void being hit by Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act as for the said purpose passing of adequate consideration was necessary, love and affection being not the requisite consideration therefor.

The partition of the properties being unfair and unequal, reopening of the partition is permissible, wherefor also it is not necessary to seek cancellation of the documents.

(v) In the event it be held that it is not necessary to seek declaration of the deed of partition and deed of release being void, Article 65 or Article 110 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act would be attracted and not Article 59 thereof.

(vi) As there is a mis-representation in regard to the nature of the document as the deed of partition ultimately turned out to be a deed of relinquishment and even otherwise, the same was opposed to public policy as contained in Section 25 of the Contract Act,. Article 59 of the Limitation Act would not be attracted.