P&H HC Upholds Limitation Bar On Buyer’s Khasra Claim, Filed 19 Years After He Signed The Sale Deed

The plaintiff sought rectification of a sale deed dated 4 January 2000, alleging that the wrong khasra number had been entered due to a typographical error, and sought consequential declaratory relief concerning ownership and possession.

He claimed to have discovered the discrepancy in 2018 when seeking mutation.

The defendant disputed the deed and consideration.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court affirmed.

The plaintiff filed a Regular Second Appeal; the High Court condoned the 129-day delay in filing it and then considered the appeal on the merits.

The Court stated that a suit seeking rectification of an instrument is subject to a three-year limitation period.

It applied the principles that a party to an instrument is ordinarily fixed with knowledge of its recitals, and that a later approach to revenue authorities does not, by itself, create a fresh cause of action or revive a stale claim.

The plaintiff was a signatory to, and the sole beneficiary of, the 2000 sale deed.

The alleged discrepancy in the khasra number appeared on the face of the instrument, so the Court rejected his assertion that he first learned of it in 2018.

Because the suit was filed only in 2019, the later revenue proceedings did not provide a fresh cause of action or extend the limitation period.

The Court therefore found no perversity or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

It dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.