MANJIT KAUR AND ANR. Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is against the order rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint. By the application, the petitioner wanted to contend that the sale deeds executed by the husband and the father of the petitioner respectively purported to have been sold the property in favour of the defendant on 01.09.2000 and that the sales were required to be set aside. The suit had been instituted in the year, 2004 and even on the date of the institution of the suit, more than 3 years had elapsed from the date of the execution of the sale deeds. The contention by the purchaser -defendant was that the amendment which was proposed to be taken, was barred by limitation even on the date of the institution of the suit and was equally barred on the date when the application had been filed. The Court accepted the contention and rejected the petition.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner went on to contend that as per the averment in the plaint in para 5, he had stated that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the property and that he was denying the title of the plaintiffs to the property on the basis of the mutation effected wrongly in his favour in revenue entries and therefore, the plaintiff was filing the suit for declaration and for injunction restraining the defendant from alienating during the disposing of the suit. In defence the defendant pleaded that he had actually purchased the property under two transactions of sale: one at the instance of the husband of the first plaintiff Harjap Singh and Anr. by Harjap Singh acting on behalf of the father Fateh Singh. In the ultimate analysis, by the amendment which the plaintiff was seeking, he wanted to contend that Harjap Singh, the vendor, had been made the victim of fraud to sell the property and therefore, the sales were required to be set aside. If the property was claimed by the plaintiffs as heirs to Harjap Singh, they could claim as heir only from the ancestral property. If he had sold the property during his life time and the vendor himself had not taken any action during his life for 4 years to have the sales set aside, it does not avail to the plaintiff to claim for similar relief. The limitation for assailing a transaction on the ground of fraud is 3 years from when the fraud was committed or when he had knowledge thereof. The person, who had executed the sale deeds, was bound to have the knowledge of transactions on the date when he accepted the same and if he had not taken any action during his life time within a period of limitation, a fortiori , the plaintiffs cannot also take any action. The claim was patently barred by limitation.