Supreme Court of India

Prem Singh v Birbal

2006 INSC 28020061 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
A sale deed was executed by a minor. Years later he sued in 1979 to have it set aside.
Issue
Which article of the Limitation Act applied and whether the suit was in time.
Held
Limitation still applied to his suit. He could have sued within the time allowed from the deed or within three years of attaining majority, and did neither, so the suit was time-barred. The Court explained that Art.59 applies to instruments voidable for fraud, coercion, undue influence or mistake, not to instruments that are void.
Principle
A former minor who wants a deed set aside must sue within the period running from majority; limitation is not displaced.
Cite this

Facts

  • A sale deed was executed by a minor. Years later he sued in 1979 to have it set aside.

Issue

  1. Which article of the Limitation Act applied and whether the suit was in time.

Held

  • Limitation still applied to his suit. He could have sued within the time allowed from the deed or within three years of attaining majority, and did neither, so the suit was time-barred. The Court explained that Art.59 applies to instruments voidable for fraud, coercion, undue influence or mistake, not to instruments that are void.

Cite this

Citation

Prem Singh v Birbal 2006 INSC 280

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1944891/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.