Suit for Possession Based on Void Sale Deed Can Be Filed Within 12 Years, not 3 Years

Supreme Court: Suit for Possession Based on Void Sale Deed Can Be Filed Within 12 Years, not 3 Years

Court clarifies difference between void and voidable documents under Limitation Act

Ruling in Haryana land dispute settles long-standing confusion on time limits for property possession suits

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi, September 12, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying that a suit for possession of property based on a void sale deed is governed by a 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — not the shorter 3-year period under Article 59.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that when a defendant claims possession of property through a forged or void sale deed, the rightful owner can file a suit for possession within 12 years from the date they become aware of the adverse possession.

The Court stressed that Article 59 applies only to voidable instruments — those that are valid on their face but can be set aside due to fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation. In contrast, a void document is a legal nullity from the outset and does not require formal cancellation.

The Case: Haryana Agricultural Land Dispute

The ruling came in a dispute over agricultural land in Haryana. The legal heirs of the defendant claimed ownership based on a 1973 sale deed. The heirs of the original plaintiff argued that:

• The plaintiff’s signature on the deed was forged.
• No sale consideration was ever paid.
• The plaintiff never intended to sell her share of the land.

In 1984, 11 years after the alleged sale, the plaintiff’s heirs filed a suit seeking possession of her one-third share. The defendants argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 59, which allows only 3 years to seek cancellation of an instrument from the date of knowledge.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

Rejecting the defendants’ argument, the Court held that no cancellation was necessary because the sale deed was void ab initio — meaning it never had legal effect.

“When the document in question is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same is not necessary since such a transaction is non-est in the eyes of law,” Justice Pardiwala wrote.

The Court explained:

• Voidable documents: Prima facie valid but can be annulled (e.g., contracts signed under duress). Governed by Article 59 — 3-year limit.
• Void documents: Invalid from the start (e.g., forged deeds, sales without consideration). Governed by Article 65 — 12-year limit for possession suits.

Key Precedents Cited

The bench referred to several earlier rulings to support its decision:

• Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006) — A void transaction is a nullity and does not require cancellation.
• Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman (2025) — A person not party to an instrument is not obliged to seek its cancellation.
• State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar (2000) — For void documents, a simple possession suit under Article 65 is sufficient.
• Kewal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar (2022) — A sale deed without payment of price is void.

Practical Impact of the Ruling

This judgment resolves a long-standing confusion in property law and will have wide implications:

1. More time for rightful owners — Victims of forged or fraudulent sales now have up to 12 years to reclaim possession.
2. Reduced litigation over cancellation — Plaintiffs can directly sue for possession without first seeking to set aside a void deed.
3. Clearer legal strategy — Lawyers can now advise clients with certainty on which limitation period applies.

Void vs. Voidable: The Legal Difference

The Court’s ruling hinges on the distinction between void and voidable instruments:

 

Why This Matters

Property disputes in India often involve allegations of forged documents or fraudulent sales. Until now, there was uncertainty over whether such cases had to be filed within 3 years or could be brought later.

This ruling ensures that genuine owners are not unfairly penalised for discovering fraud after the 3-year window, especially in rural areas where land records may be poorly maintained.

Expert Reactions

Legal experts have welcomed the clarity. Advocate R.K. Sharma said, “This judgment will prevent injustice to landowners who lose property through forged deeds. It recognises that fraud often comes to light years later.”

Property law specialist Meera Kapoor added, “The Court has drawn a bright line between void and voidable documents. This will reduce unnecessary procedural hurdles.”

The Court’s Final Words

Summing up, the bench observed:

“In the eyes of the law, the plaintiff could not be said to have executed the sale deed. Therefore, she could maintain an action to obtain possession within 12 years from the date she knew the defendant’s possession was adverse.”

The Court dismissed the defendants’ appeal and upheld the plaintiff’s right to possession.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a landmark clarification in Indian property law. By affirming that suits for possession based on void sale deeds fall under the 12-year limitation period, the Court has strengthened protections for rightful owners and simplified the legal path to reclaiming property.

For countless landowners facing similar disputes, this ruling offers both clarity and hope.

ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES

Supreme Court Declares Housing a Fundamental Right, Urges Centre to Create Revival Fund for Stalled Real Estate Projects

Paying for Daughter’s Marriage is a Father’s Duty, Orders ₹10 Lakh Contribution Despite Divorce

Supreme Court Orders All Bail Pleas to Be Decided Within Two Months to Protect Personal Liberty

Plaint Cannot Be Rejected If Even One Relief Is Maintainable

SC Orders SIT with Hindu-Muslim Officers to Probe 2023 Akola Clashes

Supreme Court Acquits Uttarakhand Doctor Under Right of Private Defence

Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence in POCSO Case, Clarifies ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine

Supreme Court Refuses Plea to Cancel India-Pakistan Asia Cup 2025 Match