Limitation for cancelling a registered instrument runs from the date of knowledge under Article 59.

The plaintiff (Chhote Lal Mishra) purchased a plot in 1978 and constructed a two-storeyed house.

He alleged that on 25.10.1996, the defendants abducted him and, at gunpoint, forced him to sign prepared documents at the Etah Tehsil, which turned out to be a registered sale deed in favor of defendants 1–3.

On 26.10.1996, the plaintiff's wife moved an application to the Sub-Registrar and later to the Superintendent of Police and the Chief Minister, alleging the deed was executed without consideration and under coercion.

In May 2009, upon receiving a mutation notice from the Nagarpalika, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 158 of 2019 (originally filed in 2009) seeking a permanent injunction and cancellation of the 1996 sale deed.

The defendants contended the sale was voluntary, full consideration of ₹2.05 lakhs was paid, and possession was transferred.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 07.10.2025, holding it was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff failed to prove coercion.

1. Whether the alleged sale deed dated 25.10.1996 was executed under coercion by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants no. 1 to 3?

2. Whether the plaintiffs’ suit for cancellation of the sale deed was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963?

Section 96 of the CPC regarding first appeals.

Presumption of validity of registered documents under Sections 58 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, as established in Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain v. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo and Prem Singh v. Birbal.

"Best evidence rule" under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which excludes oral evidence that contradicts the terms of a written, registered instrument, as interpreted in Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani.

Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period for the cancellation of an instrument from the date the facts first become known to the plaintiff, citing Rajeev Gupta v. Prashant Garg.

The Court found the allegation of coercion at gunpoint unsubstantiated because no FIR was registered despite numerous administrative complaints.

It noted that the Tehsil was a crowded place where the plaintiff could have protested, yet he failed to do so.

The defendants successfully proved execution through an attesting witness (DW-2).

The Court rejected the plea of undervaluation, noting that the ADM (Administration) had already validated the stamp duty and valuation in 2002.

The plaintiff's claim of retained possession was dismissed as it contradicted the recitals in the registered sale deed, a move barred by Section 92 of the Evidence Act.

On the point of limitation, the Court observed that the plaintiff's wife had been writing letters to authorities for cancellation as early as 1996 and 1997, proving "knowledge" from the date of execution.

The suit filed in 2009 (13 years later) was grossly beyond the three-year limit prescribed by Article 59.

The Court specifically held that the suit was barred by limitation as the right to sue first accrued in 1996 when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the deed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Trial Court's judgment at the admission stage with costs.