Case: Ningawwa Vs. Byrappa &amp; 3 Ors

must be brought within the time prescribed under Article 95 of the Limitation Act.6. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the terminus a quo for the limitation was the date of the execution of the gift deed and the claim of the appellant was therefore barred as the suit was filed more than three years after that date.We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Article 95 prescribes a period of limitation of three years from the time when the fraud becomes known to the party wronged.In the present case, the appellant stated that she did not come to know of the fraud committed by her husband in respect of plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village till his death. The trial court has discussed the evidence on this point and reached the conclusion that the case of the appellant is true. The appellant lived with her husband on affectionate terms till the time of his death. Till then she had no reason to suspect that any fraud had been committed on her in respect of the two plots in Lingadahalli village. It is only after his death when his brothers and respondent No. 4s brothers removed grain from the house against her wishes that the appellant came to know that the lands at Lingadahalli village were included in the gift deed by fraud. The suit was instituted by the appellant within a few days after she came to know of the fraud. We are therefore of the opinion that the suit was brought within time prescribed under Art. 95 of the Indian Limitation Act so far as plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village are concerned.7. As regards plots Nos. 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village the trial court has found that the husband of the appellant was in a position of active confidence towards her at the time of the gift deed and that he was in a position to dominate her will and the transaction of gift was on the face of it unconscionable. Section 16 (3) of the Indian Contract Act says that where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another enters into a transaction with him which appears, on the face of it, or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such transaction was not induced by undue influence, shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of another. Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act also states:"Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence."The trial court found that the respondents had not adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under these statutory provisions and reached the finding that the gift deed was obtained by the appellants husband by undue influence as alleged by her. The finding of the trial court has been affirmed by the High Court. But both the trial court and the High Court refused to grant relief to the appellant on the ground that the suit was barred under Art. 91 of the Limitation Act so far as plots Nos. 407/1 and 409/1 were concerned. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the lower courts were wrong in taking this view. We are, however, unable to accept this argument as correct. Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act provides that a suit to set aside an instrument not otherwise provided for (and no other provision of the Act applies to the circumstances of the case) shall be subject to a three years limitation which begins to run when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside are known to him. In the present case, the trial court has found) upon examination of the evidence, that at the very time of the execution of the gift deed, Ex. 45 the appellant knew that her husband prevailed upon her to convey survey plots Nos. 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village to him by undue influence. The finding of the trial court is based upon the admission of the appellant herself in the course of her evidence. In view of this finding of the trial court it is manifest that the suit of the appellant is barred under Art 91 of the Limitation Act so far as plots Nos. 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village are concerned. On behalf of the appellant Mr. K. R. Chaudhuri presented the argument that the appellant continued to be under the undue influence of her husband till the date of his death and the three years period under Art. 91 should therefore be taken to run not when the appellant had knowledge of the true nature of the gift deed but from the date when she escaped the influence of her husband by whose will she was dominated.It is not possible to accept this argument in view of the express language of Art. 91 of the Limitation Act which provides that the three years period runs from the date when the plaintiff came to know the facts entitling her to have the instrument cancelled or set aside.This view is borne out by the decision of the Judicial Committee in Someshwar Dutt v. Tribhawan Dutt, 61 Ind App 224 = (AIR 1934 PC 130 ) in which it was held that the limitation of a suit to set aside a deed of gift on the ground that it was obtained by undue influence was governed by Art. 91 of the Indian Limitation Act, and the three years period runs from the date when the plaintiff discovered the true nature of the deed, and not from the date when he escaped from the influence by which he alleged that he was dominated.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In our opinion the Civil Judge was right in taking the view that the appellant never agreed to convey the lands in plots Nos. 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village and that they were included in the gift deed by the fraud of Shiddappa without the knowledge of theIt was contended on behalf of the respondents that the terminus a quo for the limitation was the date of the execution of the gift deed and the claim of the appellant was therefore barred as the suit was filed more than three years after that date.We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Article 95 prescribes a period of limitation of three years from the time when the fraud becomes known to the party wronged.In the present case, the appellant stated that she did not come to know of the fraud committed by her husband in respect of plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village till his death. The trial court has discussed the evidence on this point and reached the conclusion that the case of the appellant is true. The appellant lived with her husband on affectionate terms till the time of his death. Till then she had no reason to suspect that any fraud had been committed on her in respect of the two plots in Lingadahalli village. It is only after his death when his brothers and respondent No. 4s brothers removed grain from the house against her wishes that the appellant came to know that the lands at Lingadahalli village were included in the gift deed by fraud. The suit was instituted by the appellant within a few days after she came to know of the fraud. We are therefore of the opinion that the suit was brought within time prescribed under Art. 95 of the Indian Limitation Act so far as plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village aretrial court found that the respondents had not adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under these statutory provisions and reached the finding that the gift deed was obtained by the appellants husband by undue influence as alleged by her. The finding of the trial court has been affirmed by the High Court. But both the trial court and the High Court refused to grant relief to the appellant on the ground that the suit was barred under Art. 91 of the Limitation Act so far as plots Nos. 407/1 and 409/1 were concerned. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the lower courts were wrong in taking this view. We are, however, unable to accept this argument as correct. Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act provides that a suit to set aside an instrument not otherwise provided for (and no other provision of the Act applies to the circumstances of the case) shall be subject to a three years limitation which begins to run when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside are known to him. In the present case, the trial court has found) upon examination of the evidence, that at the very time of the execution of the gift deed, Ex. 45 the appellant knew that her husband prevailed upon her to convey survey plots Nos. 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village to him by undue influence. The finding of the trial court is based upon the admission of the appellant herself in the course of her evidence. In view of this finding of the trial court it is manifest that the suit of the appellant is barred under Art 91 of the Limitation Act so far as plots Nos. 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village are concerned.