A suit challenging registered sale deeds is barred by limitation if filed beyond three years of knowledge.

The dispute concerns a property originally purchased by Sarathammal in 1972.

Her son (2nd Appellant) claimed she died in 1998 without selling the property, and subsequently executed a Settlement Deed in favor of his wife (1st Appellant) in 2008.

However, the property was purportedly sold by Sarathammal to the 1st Defendant (Jesu Michael) via a registered Sale Deed in 1984, who then sold it to the 2nd Defendant (V. Sujatha) in 1999.

V. Sujatha obtained patta and paid property taxes.

The Appellants filed a suit in 2011 (O.S.No.4381 of 2011) seeking a declaration that the 1984 and 1999 Sale Deeds were forged/null and void, while the 2nd Defendant filed a suit for bare injunction (O.S.No.1571 of 2011).

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the Appellants' suit and decreed the Respondent's suit for injunction.

1. Whether the Sale Deed dated 20.08.1984 executed by Sarathammal in favor of the 1st Defendant was a forged document.

2. Whether the Appellants' suit for declaration and cancellation of Sale Deeds was barred by the law of limitation.

3. Whether the Respondent was entitled to a permanent injunction based on title and the principle of "possession follows title" regarding vacant land.

The court applied the settled principle that the burden of proving forgery of a registered document lies on the party asserting it.

Under the Limitation Act, a suit for declaration must be filed within three years from the date the right to sue first accrues or from the date of knowledge of the registered document.

Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of "possession follows title," which holds that in the case of vacant land, legal possession is presumed to remain with the rightful titleholder.

It also considered the evidentiary value of revenue records, such as patta and tax receipts, in establishing a prima facie case for possession.

The Court found that the Appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving forgery, as they produced no evidence of Sarathammal’s alleged signature or admitted thumb impressions for comparison.

Crucially, the 2nd Appellant (PW.1) admitted during cross-examination that he had knowledge of the 1984 Sale Deed as early as 1985 and the 1999 Sale Deed in 2005, yet the suit was only filed in 2011.

This made the prayers for declaration hopelessly barred by limitation.

Regarding possession, the Court noted that the property was a "vacant site".

Since the Appellants failed to nullify the 1984 and 1999 Sale Deeds, title remained with the 2nd Defendant.

Applying the rule that possession follows title for vacant land, and observing the Respondent’s revenue documents (patta and tax receipts), the Court concluded that the Respondent was in legal possession.

It held that the challenge to the Sale Deeds was barred by limitation and the allegation of forgery was unproven.

The 2nd Defendant (V. Sujatha) was held to be the lawful owner in possession, thus entitled to the decree of permanent injunction.

The Appellants were ordered to pay costs.