Contributors:
Mr Akash Jain, Associate Partner
Mr Divyang Salvi, Associate

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 time-barred. 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 update was released on 26 Sep 2025.

The views expressed in this update are personal and should not be construed as any legal advice. Please contact us directly on +91 22 40565252 or legalupdates@mhcolaw.com for any assistance.

Legal Update Team
MANSUKHLAL HIRALAL & COMPANY
Advocates, Solicitors and Notaries
T: +91 22 40565252
Mumbai Office: Surya Mahal, 2nd Floor, 5, Burjorji Bharucha Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 023, India
Delhi Office: Block C-9, Lower Ground Floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi - 110 014, India
www.mhcolaw.com

"Noted lawyer in the Real Estate practitioner from India" - Chambers & Partners

Please consider the environment before printing this email

The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. This communication may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken relying on the contents is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, or if you or your employer does not consent to email messages of this kind, please notify the sender immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your system. No liability is accepted for any harm that may be caused to your systems or data by this message.