Dismissed¶28

Shaina Jain v. Naib Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2026RSA/1516/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Counter-claim limitation; Article 59 Limitation Act 1963; three-year period; cancellation of registered sale deed; knowledge of execution versus precise date; incorrect date pleaded does not save limitation; power of attorney Surjan Singh; agreement to sell 22.10.1998; suit for specific performance April 2004; land 20 Kanal 19 Marla; counter-claim filed 29.07.2015; Trial Court judgment 14.09.2016; First Appellate Court judgment 07.02.2022; concurrent findings not perverse; no substantial question of law; Regular Second Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Deepak Gupta J.

What did the court decide?

A counter-claim seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing three years from when the facts entitling cancellation/set aside first become known.

Shaina Jain Vs Naib Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the counter-claim filed by the appellant on 29.07.2015, seeking cancellation/declaration of nullity of the registered sale deed dated 07.04.2004, is barred by limitation. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

On the record, the appellant was aware of the execution of the sale deed much prior to the filing of the counter-claim; the plea of lack of knowledge fails even if examined.

¶23

Key takeaways

Even assuming knowledge is reckoned from the date of production of the sale deed in the suit, the counter-claim filed on 29.07.2015 is ex facie beyond the prescribed period of limitation.ratio¶24
The plaintiffs' initially incorrect date of the sale deed does not extend or save limitation; knowledge of the execution of the sale deed itself, not its precise date, is material.ratio¶25
The concurrent findings that the counter-claim is barred by limitation are neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence, and no substantial question of law arises in the appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J.) dismissed RSA No.1516 of 2022 (pronounced 04.02.2026) filed by defendant No.2 Shaina Jain against the concurrent judgments and decrees (Trial Court 14.09.2016; First Appellate Court 07.02.2022) rejecting her counter-claim filed on 29.07.2015, which sought a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 07.04.2004, purportedly executed through her alleged attorney Surjan Singh, and the power of attorney dated 22.10.1998 were illegal, null and void. Held: a counter-claim for cancellation of a registered sale deed is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing three years from when the facts entitling cancellation first become known. Knowledge of the execution of the sale deed itself, and not its precise date, is material; hence the plaintiffs' initial pleading of an incorrect date (07.07.2004) does not extend or save limitation. The record showed the appellant was contesting the proceedings from inception, with a power of attorney on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 filed as far back as 07.06.2005; even reckoning knowledge from the date of production of the sale deed in the suit, the counter-claim filed on 29.07.2015 is ex facie time-barred. The concurrent findings being neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence, no substantial question of law arises. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA No.1516 of 2022

¶3

Shaina Jain

¶4

. . . . Appellant

¶5

vs.

¶6

Naib Singh (now deceased) through LRs and others

¶7

. . . . Respondents

¶8

Reserved on: February 03, 2026 Pronounced on: February 04, 2026 Pronounced fully/operative part : Fully

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

Present:Mr. S u meet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate and M s . Radhika, Advocate for ap p ellants

¶11

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶12

The pre s ent Regular Second Appeal ha s been preferred by defendan t No.2–Shaina Jain, w ho was the counter-claimant before the learned Trial Court , assailing the concurrent judgments and decree s passed by the courts below , whereby her co u nter-claim seeking declaration that the sale deed date d 07.04.2004, purportedly executed by her throu g h her alleged attorney Surja n Singh, is null and v o id, has been dismissed.

¶13

The f a ctual matrix, in brief, is that t h e plaintiffs instituted a suit fo r specific performa n ce in April 2004 on the basis of an agreement to sell date d 22.10.1998 in res p ect of land measuring 20 Kanal 19 Marla. It was pleaded tha t the defendants, in c luding the present appellant, h a d executed powers of attorne y in favour of Surj a n Singh. During the pendency of the dispute, the owner s executed various s ale deeds in favour of third parties, who were subsequentl y impleaded as def e ndants No.3 to 8. The plaintif f s also relied upon a sale deed dated 07.04.2004, allegedly executed by the pr e sent appellant through Surja n Singh, conveying 4 Kanals 4 Marlas of land as part p erformance of the agreement. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of 3 Pages

¶14

Page N: 1 of 3 Pages

¶15

The defendants contested the suit by denying the agreement to sell and alleging that the documents were executed only as security for a loan transaction. The present appellant filed a counter-claim on 29.07.2015, seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 07.04.2004 as well as the power of attorney dated 22.10.1998 were illegal, null and void and liable to be cancelled.

¶16

After framing issues and taking evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed both the suit and the counter-claim vide judgment dated 14.09.2016. Appeals filed by both sides were dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.02.2022.

¶17

The present appeal is confined only to the dismissal of the counterclaim.

¶18

Learned senior counsel for the appellant has primarily contended that the courts below have erred in holding the counter-claim to be barred by limitation. It is argued that the plaintiffs themselves pleaded an incorrect date of the sale deed as 07.07.2004 and that the correct date i.e. 07.04.2004 surfaced only during evidence. It is further contended that the appellant acquired knowledge of the impugned sale deed only upon receipt of summons in the suit, which fact stands admitted by defendant No.1 in his cross-examination, and therefore, the counter-claim having been filed within three years from the date of knowledge is within limitation.

¶19

Ld. Courts below have noted that the sale deed is a registered document, that the appellant was a party to the proceedings from the very inception, and that the counter-claim filed after more than a decade from the execution of the sale deed is clearly barred by limitation.

¶20

After hearing learned senior counsel for the appellant and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

¶21

The counter-claim seeks cancellation of a registered sale deed and is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of three years from the date, when the facts entitling the claimant to have the instrument cancelled or set aside first become known. In the present case, even if YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 3 Pages

¶22

Page N: 2 of 3 Pages

¶23

the plea of lack of knowledge is examined, the record clearly demonstrates that the appellant was aware of the execution of the sale deed much prior to the filing of the counter-claim.

¶24

The appellate court has specifically noticed that a power of attorney on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 was filed in the suit as far back as 07.06.2005. From that date onwards, the appellant was actively contesting the proceedings. Even assuming that knowledge of the sale deed is reckoned from the date of production in the suit, the counter-claim filed on 29.07.2015 is ex facie beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

¶25

The mere fact that the plaintiffs initially mentioned an incorrect date of the sale deed does not extend or save limitation. What is material is the knowledge of the execution of the sale deed itself, and not the precise date thereof. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that such knowledge was acquired within three years preceding the filing of the counter-claim.

¶26

Both the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence, that the counter-claim is barred by limitation. These findings are neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.

¶27