Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr. LRs.
Background
The appellant and other family members sold a plot of agricultural land in Surat to a purchaser in 2009 via a registered sale deed that recorded full payment of about Rs. 1.74 crore through 36 cheques. The purchaser later resold the land to two other buyers in 2013. In December 2014, more than five years after the original sale, the sellers filed a suit claiming that most of the 36 cheques were "bogus" and that the sale deed should be cancelled for non-payment, also seeking to invalidate the subsequent 2013 sale. The trial court rejected the plaint as barred by limitation and this was upheld by the Gujarat High Court, leading to the present appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that even taking the plaintiffs' allegations as true, non-payment of part of the sale consideration cannot be a ground to cancel an already-executed and registered sale deed, once ownership has passed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the remedy for unpaid consideration is a suit for recovery of money, not cancellation of title. The Court further held the suit was hopelessly time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act (3 years from when the cause of action arose in 2009), noting the plaintiffs' 5.5-year silence, their admission of execution of the sale deed, and their attempt to mislead the court by omitting the 2009 sale deed's date from the plaint's prayer clause. The Court characterized the suit as a classic case of "clever drafting" to manufacture an illusory cause of action and dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 1 lakh.
Lesson Learnt
A registered sale deed that records receipt of full payment cannot later be challenged or cancelled merely by alleging non-payment years afterward: such disputes must be pursued (if at all) as a money-recovery claim, and courts will reject even well-drafted plaints at the threshold if the underlying claim is clearly time-barred.