defendant No.1 on the pretext of getting him medically treated as Chunnilal on that day was profusely ill and therefore it is transparently void and once the court has reached to the conclusion holding the document to be void, it is liable to be set aside, as, in the present case, Chunnilal was totally deceived as to the character of the document. Therefore, both the Courts below have concurrently erred in understanding the true nature and import of the document after having held that Chunnilal was deceived as to the character of the document by defendant No.1 while getting it executed, but wrongly held the document sale deed was only voidable and hit by Section 19 of the Act of 1872. However, the right of a party defrauded is not affected by the mere lapse of time so long as he remains in ignorance of the fraud (see Long v. Lloyd 12). Lapse of time is not of itself a bar to setting aside a contract but may be material as evidence of acquiescence that is, of tacit election to affirm the contract ( Armstrong v. Jackson 13). Chunnilal was, as stated, seriously ill, therefore, he could not challenge despite noticed the fraud played with him, as such, same will not bar the plaintiff to question the said sale deed after death of Chunnilal being successor-in-interest. As such, judgments & decrees of both the Courts below to the extent of issue No.3(b) holding that the sale deed dated 29-10-1975 (Ex.D-1) is only voidable, is set aside and the sale deed executed is held to be void and the sale deed Ex.D-1 being void is accordingly set aside. Judgments and decrees of both the Courts below to that extent are
