Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
Smt. Dayawati And Ors. vs Madan Lal Varma And Ors. on 24 January, 2003 cites

Raj Kumar Raghubanchmani Prasad Narain ... vs Ambica Prasad Singh (Dead) By Lawyers ... on 18 December, 1970

16. The next question is regarding limitation. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that since the sale deed executed by Nava Ratan Lal in favour of Ghasi Ram was void ab initio there was no limitation for filing suit for declaration of a void sale deed. As held above pleas that sale deed was obtained by fraud, undue influence and without consideration is not open to the present appellants and Nava Ratan Lal had not raised these pleas. A sale deed obtained by fraud undue influence and inadequate consideration is voidable. It was also pleaded that sale deed was without legal necessity. The contents of sale deed dated 30-7-1969 show that Nava Ratan Lal executed it for self and for his minor sons for legal necessity. Assuming that there was no legal necessity, the sale deed can be termed as voidable as held by the Apex Court in the case of Raghubahchmani Prasad Narain Singh v. Ambica Prasad Singh, AIR 1971 SC 776 that in any event an alienation by the Manager of the joint Hindu family even without legal necessity is avoidable and not void. Thus in any event the suit for declaration should have been filed within three years from the date of accrual of cause of action (vide Sections 31 and 38 Specific Relief Act read with Articles 59 and 58 of the Schedule I of Limitation Act.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 39 - J C Shah - Full Document
1