Jamila Begum (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Shami Mohd.
Background
The original plaintiff (predecessor of respondent no.1) sued in 1978 to declare a 1967 mortgage deed and a 1970 sale deed in favour of the appellant void, claiming the disputed house had instead been orally gifted to him by his father in 1970, and alternatively sought redemption of the mortgage. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court and then the High Court (in second appeal) reversed that, upholding the gift and Will and ordering the appellant to hand over possession after repayment of the mortgage amount.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that the suit itself was barred by limitation, since the plaintiff admittedly knew of the 1970 sale deed by May 1971 but did not sue until July 1978, well beyond the three-year period prescribed under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act for seeking a declaration or cancellation of an instrument. It also held that the first appellate court and High Court had recorded factual findings (e.g., on the genuineness and necessity of the mortgage and sale) without proper pleadings or evidence, and that the High Court had wrongly treated the suit as a simple mortgage-redemption suit, bypassing the mandatory procedure under Order 34 Rules 7 and 8 CPC. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the appeal, dismissed the original suit, and restored the trial court's decree in the appellant's favour.
Lesson Learnt
Claims to cancel a sale deed or challenge a mortgage must be brought within the strict limitation period (three years from knowledge of the transaction): courts cannot grant relief, however sympathetic the facts, once that window has closed, and appellate courts must base reversals on pleaded issues and evidence, not on points never raised by the parties.