Judgment Intelligence
Petition Allowed- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 29 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963 — Sections 3, 10; Articles 59, 65; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 126
Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment and decree of the courts below set aside and the daughter's suit dismissed as barred by limitation; pending applications disposed of (paras 21-24).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 29 October 2026 · Court's copy
Key holdings
- An absolute gift imposing no obligation on the donee creates no trust; Section 10 does not apply (paras 17-18).
- A gift said to be procured by undue influence is voidable, not void: Article 59 governs, not Article 65 (para 19).
- Time ran from the donor's awareness of the deed's true nature, not her release from the influence (para 20).
- A mere subsequent breach of promise does not indicate fraud (para 21).
- A father's stopping his gifts in 1995 gave no cause of action to set aside a 1974 gift (para 21).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Questions before the Court (framed by NyayVidhan)
- Did the gift deed create a trust, so that Section 10 of the Limitation Act kept the suit alive?
- Was the suit governed by Article 65 or by Article 59, and from when did time run?
- Could the alleged fraud, or the father's stopping his gifts in 1995, postpone the start of limitation?
Submissions
For the appellants. An unconditional gift can be revoked under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act only on grounds for rescinding a contract. The plaintiff always knew the deed's nature and her father's influence, so time ran from execution. Breach of a promise not to remarry is not fraud, and the deed records none; even from the second marriage, limitation lapsed long before the suit (paras 10, 12).
For the respondent. The plaint shows a trust, so Section 10 applies. Fraud became known in 1995; the father, who never entered the witness box, did not prove when she learnt of it; and all courts found undue influence (para 13).
Court's Findings
No trust, so no Section 10
Nothing in the gift deed shows that the properties were to be held for the daughter's benefit; its recitals negate any trust. Title vested in the donee absolutely, with no obligation to safeguard the property or share its usufruct with the donor. It was an unconditional gift, so Section 10 could not rescue the suit (paras 17-18).
Article 59, from knowledge of the deed
Though possession was also sought, Article 65 did not apply: even on the plaint case the gift was voidable, not void, and possession could not be granted unless it was set aside. Article 59 governed, with three years from when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument set aside first became known (para 19). The plaint showed she was conscious of her father's influence and executed the deed under it. Applying Ningawwa vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar, time ran from when she knew the deed's true nature, not from when she came out of the influence, which in any event ended on her marriage in 1975. Limitation expired much before 1997 (para 20).
A later breach of promise is not fraud
No specific pleading said the father suppressed any material fact when the gift was made, and a mere subsequent breach of a promise not to remarry does not indicate fraud. Relying on Reliance Salt Ltd. v. Cosmos Enterprises, the Court said fraud vitiating a contract must have a nexus with acts before it. The gift set no condition against marriage, transferred the property absolutely, and nothing showed fraudulent intention from the start. A father's gifts to his daughter carry no legal obligation, so their stopping in 1995 gave no cause of action to set aside a 1974 gift. The courts below committed manifest error; the suit was clearly barred (para 21).
Legal Principle
NyayVidhan's view · Practice note
Why It Matters
For anyone seeking to undo a gift or other instrument years later, the clock under Article 59 is the decisive issue. The Court framed limitation as the short question (para 15) and dismissed the suit on it, although the courts below had found undue influence (paras 6-9, 13). Time runs from knowledge of what the deed is, not from the end of the influence (para 20). Fraud has to be pleaded specifically and tied to the time of the transaction; a later broken promise will not reset the clock (para 21). Contrast Sundarya v. Sanyukat Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, a Rajasthan High Court ruling on limitation for suits on void documents.
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Ningawwa vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar and Ors. 1968 SCC OnLine SC 206
As this order applies it: limitation for setting aside an instrument executed under influence runs from the date the executant was aware of the true nature of the instrument and not from the date she came out of the influence. Applied to hold that the daughter, aware of the nature of the 1974 gift deed and of her father's influence, sued long after limitation under Article 59 had expired.
- Reliance Salt Ltd. v. Cosmos Enterprises & Another (2006) 13 SCC 599
Fraud which vitiates a contract must have a nexus with the acts of the parties prior to entering into the contract; a subsequent breach of promise by a party would not vitiate the contract itself (paragraph 17 of that judgment, as footnoted). Relied on to hold that the father's alleged breach of a promise not to remarry did not indicate fraud.