- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Technology, Metals & Mining and Property industries
The Supreme Court of India in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1961) has clarified that when a property ownership dispute arises from a sale deed that is void ab initio, the lawful owner can file for possession within twelve years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The ruling distinguishes void from voidable documents, streamlining the remedy for owners whose property rights are threatened by fraudulent transfers and reinforcing robust legal protection for genuine titleholders.
Facts in Brief:
The case involved a longstanding dispute over agricultural land in Haryana (“Suit property”). The Plaintiffs asserted ownership of a one-third share in land, alleging that the Defendant's possession was based on a fraudulent sale deed dated 1973, which the alleged seller (Plaintiff) had never executed. The Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction, or in the alternative, joint possession of the land, and a declaration that the sale deed was void after 11 years. The Trial Court dismissed their suit, but the first Appellate Court and the High Court ruled in their favour. The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the suit was time-barred and that the Plaintiffs failed to prove fraud or lack of execution of the deed.
Supreme Court Findings:
The Supreme Court confined itself to the issue of whether the Plaintiff's suit was timebarred. It held that the suit, though filed eleven years after the impugned sale deed, was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The Court explained that suits for possession based on title are maintainable within twelve years when the impugned sale deed is void ab initio, and not merely voidable. The Court stressed that in such a case, the original owner's right is not affected by a fraudulent or forged instrument, and there is no requirement to seek its cancellation within Article 59's three-year window. The Court also highlighted the difference between fraud relating to the ‘character' of a document (which renders it void) and as to its contents (which may make it voidable). Evidence clearly showed the Plaintiff never executed the deed or received consideration, confirming the judgment of the Lower Appellate Courts in the Plaintiff's favour.
Impact:
This ruling clarifies the limitation law applicable in cases of fraudulent property transfers and offers practical assurance to property owners facing similar circumstances. The decision enables owners to challenge unlawful possession based on forged or fraudulent documents for up to twelve years after adverse possession begins, expanding access to remedy. By reinforcing the distinction between void and voidable transactions, the Court's decision will streamline property litigation and strengthen legal certainty in title disputes. Stakeholders—in particular, landowners— must ensure careful record-keeping and timely action if their property rights are infringed by such transactions.
MHCO Comment:
The Supreme Court's approach brings much-needed clarity to real estate litigation involving fraudulent sale deeds. By recognising the extended limitation window for actions based on void documents and minimising procedural hurdles, the ruling affirms substantive justice and legal security for legitimate landowners. The judgment will promote diligence, transparency, and fair outcomes in property disputes, contributing to overall real estate market stability in India.
This article was released on 26 September 2025.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
