IN THE HIGH Shaina Jain Naib Singh (now dec and others CORAM: HON’BL Present:- Mr. Sum Ms. Shre and Ms. for appe DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The prese No.2–Shaina Jain, w assailing the concur whereby her coun 07.04.2004, purport Singh, is null and voi 2. The fact specific performanc 22.10.1998 in respe the defendants, inclu in favour of Surjan executed various sa impleaded as defen dated 07.04.2004, a Singh, conveying 4 K Page N: 1 of 3 Pages IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY vs. deceased) through LRs Reserved on: February Pronounced on: February Pronounced fully/operative N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate Ms. Radhika, Advocate ppellants , J. resent Regular Second Appeal has n, who was the counter-claimant b ncurrent judgments and decrees ounter-claim seeking declaration portedly executed by her through void, has been dismissed. factual matrix, in brief, is that the ance in April 2004 on the basis o spect of land measuring 20 Kanal including the present appellant, had rjan Singh. During the pendency s sale deeds in favour of third par fendants No.3 to 8. The plaintiffs 4, allegedly executed by the pres 4 Kanals 4 Marlas of land as part pe ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1516 of 2022 . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents ary 03, 2026 uary 04, 2026 ative part : Fully PTA with has been preferred by defendant nt before the learned Trial Court, es passed by the courts below, tion that the sale deed dated ugh her alleged attorney Surjan the plaintiffs instituted a suit for is of an agreement to sell dated nal 19 Marla. It was pleaded that , had executed powers of attorney ncy of the dispute, the owners parties, who were subsequently fs also relied upon a sale deed present appellant through Surjan rt performance of the agreement. 22 nt rt, , ed jan for ed at ey ers tly ed jan YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 3 Pages 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The present appeal is confined only to the dismissal of the counter- claim. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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: 3 of 3 Pages 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. 14. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. February 04, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on: February 04 , 2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document