S. 17 Limitation Act | To Get Over Limitation, Plaintiff Should Show Fraud Prevented Knowledge Of Right To Sue; Not Just Fraud In Sale : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently clarified that to seek an exemption from the limitation period under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a plaintiff must demonstrate that fraud actively prevented them from knowing their right to sue, instead of merely claiming that the sale deed was fraudulently executed.

Section 17 of the Limitation Act says that limitation period in respect of a fraudulent action will not commence until the fraud is known.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing the case where the dispute arose from a 2008 sale deed. The petitioner filed a suit in 2012 seeking cancellation of the deed, but the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court all dismissed her plea, holding it was barred by limitation (filed beyond the 3-year limit under Article 59 of the Limitation Act).

The Appellant-Plaintiff contended that she was entitled to an exemption under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, as the alleged fraud in the sale deed came to her knowledge only in 2010, and thus the suit for cancellation of the deed should not be considered time-barred.

Rejecting her argument, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala observed that the exemption under Section 17 should be provided if it was shown that the fraud was committed, preventing the plaintiff from pursuing her legal remedies.

The Court noted that the Appellant alleged fraud in the execution of the sale deed but failed to prove that the fraud prevented her from knowing she had a legal remedy.

“We are of the opinion that the fraud relating to the sale transaction as alleged itself would not help the plaintiff in getting over the plea of limitation in this case. As already discussed, under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff should have been kept out of knowledge of his right to sue by means of fraud. We are of the opinion that the alleged fraud relating to the sale transaction itself has nothing to do with the question viz., that the plaintiff had been kept out of knowledge of his right to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed because of fraud.”, the court said.

The Trial Court had rejected the Appellant's claim of fraud in the execution of the 2008 sale deed, noting that since she was personally present at the time of its execution, it was implausible for her to have discovered the alleged fraud only in 2010. As a property dealer, the Appellant, acting as a reasonable person, was expected to have verified the terms of the deed at the time of registration. The Supreme Court did not interfere with these findings.

The Supreme Court also noted that the plaint did not have specific pleadings regarding fraud as mandated by Order VII Rule 6 CPC.

Thus, the Court negated the Appellant's claim, asserting that the remedy under Section 17 of the Limitation requires fraud that prevents the plaintiff from knowing they had a legal remedy, and not about fraud in the sale deed's execution.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: SANTOSH DEVI VERSUS SUNDER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Srishti Singla, Adv. Mr. Karan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Manik Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR

For Respondent(s) :