# Pramod Kumar & Ors v. Sheeshram & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 904
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-08
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1790 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-ors-v-sheeshram-ors-52598
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in directing
the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fees on
the market value of the disputed property for
the relief of cancellation / declaration of sale
deeds, without first determining the market
value of the property on the date of institution
of the suit and without examining whether the
plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title were
parties to the sale deeds, as required under
Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (U.P.
Amendment).

Headnotes
Court Fees Act, 1870 (as amended in U.P.)
- s.7(iv-A); Sch. II, Art.17(iii) - Suit for
declaration - Cancellation / adjudging
void sale deeds - Valuation of relief -
Market value - Party or non-party to
instrument
-
One-fifth
valuation
-
Determination of market value - Duty of
Trial Court - Remand.

Held:
Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (U.P.
Amendment) governs suits for or involving
cancellation or adjudging void or voidable
instruments securing property having market
value. Where the plaintiff or his predecessor-intitle was a party to the instrument, court fees
are payable on the full value of the subjectmatter; where he was not a party, court fees are
payable on one-fifth of the value of the subjectmatter. [Paras 6, 11]

Article 17(iii) of Schedule II applies only to
declaratory suits not otherwise provided for. In
view of the specific provision contained in
Section 7(iv-A), Article 17(iii) has no application
to suits involving cancellation of sale deeds
having market value. [Paras 11-12]

The value of the subject-matter for purposes of
Section 7(iv-A) is the market value of the
property on the date of filing of the suit, and not
merely the consideration mentioned in the sale
deeds. Determination of such market value is a
10 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Sheeshram & Ors.
905
mandatory
prerequisite
before
directing
payment of ad valorem court fees. [Paras 1415]

The Trial Court erred in directing payment of ad
valorem court fees without ascertaining the
market value of the disputed property and
without determining whether the plaintiffs or
their predecessors-in-title were parties to the
impugned sale deeds. [Paras 10, 14-16]

The impugned order was set aside and the
matter was remitted to the Trial Court to decide
the issue of valuation and court fees afresh,
after determining market value in accordance
with law. Appeal allowed. [Paras 17-18]

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Shailendra
Bhardwaj
and
Others
v.
Chandra Pal and Another, (2013) 1 SCC
579 - relied on; Smt. Bibbi and Another v.
Sagun Chandra and Others, 1967 SCC
OnLine All 79 (FB) - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Court Fees Act, 1870 (as amended in Uttar
Pradesh); Stamp Act, 1899; Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.

List of Keywords
Court
fees;
Cancellation
of
sale
deed;
Declaration; Market value; Party to instrument;
One-fifth valuation; Determination of valuation;
Remand.

Case Arising From
Order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division) / Fast Track Court,
Bulandshahr in Original Suit No. 01 of 2015
(Pramod Kumar and Others v. Sheeshram and
Others).

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Abhishek Gupta, Sri
Chandra Bhan Gupta
For the Respondents:

## Text

904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ation
upra)

11. In this way, the claimants are
entitled
to
total
compensation
of
Rs.23,34,055/- alongwith interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till it?s actual payment,
which is to be indemnified by the insurer of
the offending Truck No.UP-70-DT-3749.

12. The appeal is allowed. The
award of the tribunal is modified to the
above extent.

13. If any amount has been paid by
the insurance company previously, then the
insurance company is entitled to adjust it
accordingly. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation before the concerned tribunal
within one month. The tribunal will be at
liberty
to
proportionally
award
the
enhanced amount of compensation to the
claimants, keeping in view their age and
dependency.

14. The original record of the lower
court
be
sent
back,
forthwith.
Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 904
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1790 of 2025

Pramod Kumar & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sheeshram & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Abhishek Gupta, Chandra Bhan Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in directing
the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fees on
the market value of the disputed property for
the relief of cancellation / declaration of sale
deeds, without first determining the market
value of the property on the date of institution
of the suit and without examining whether the
plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title were
parties to the sale deeds, as required under
Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (U.P.
Amendment).

Headnotes
Court Fees Act, 1870 (as amended in U.P.)
- s.7(iv-A); Sch. II, Art.17(iii) - Suit for
declaration - Cancellation / adjudging
void sale deeds - Valuation of relief -
Market value - Party or non-party to
instrument
-
One-fifth
valuation
-
Determination of market value - Duty of
Trial Court - Remand.

Held:
Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (U.P.
Amendment) governs suits for or involving
cancellation or adjudging void or voidable
instruments securing property having market
value. Where the plaintiff or his predecessor-intitle was a party to the instrument, court fees
are payable on the full value of the subjectmatter; where he was not a party, court fees are
payable on one-fifth of the value of the subjectmatter. [Paras 6, 11]

Article 17(iii) of Schedule II applies only to
declaratory suits not otherwise provided for. In
view of the specific provision contained in
Section 7(iv-A), Article 17(iii) has no application
to suits involving cancellation of sale deeds
having market value. [Paras 11-12]

The value of the subject-matter for purposes of
Section 7(iv-A) is the market value of the
property on the date of filing of the suit, and not
merely the consideration mentioned in the sale
deeds. Determination of such market value is a
10 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Sheeshram & Ors.
905
mandatory
prerequisite
before
directing
payment of ad valorem court fees. [Paras 1415]

The Trial Court erred in directing payment of ad
valorem court fees without ascertaining the
market value of the disputed property and
without determining whether the plaintiffs or
their predecessors-in-title were parties to the
impugned sale deeds. [Paras 10, 14-16]

The impugned order was set aside and the
matter was remitted to the Trial Court to decide
the issue of valuation and court fees afresh,
after determining market value in accordance
with law. Appeal allowed. [Paras 17-18]

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Shailendra
Bhardwaj
and
Others
v.
Chandra Pal and Another, (2013) 1 SCC
579 - relied on; Smt. Bibbi and Another v.
Sagun Chandra and Others, 1967 SCC
OnLine All 79 (FB) - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Court Fees Act, 1870 (as amended in Uttar
Pradesh); Stamp Act, 1899; Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.

List of Keywords
Court
fees;
Cancellation
of
sale
deed;
Declaration; Market value; Party to instrument;
One-fifth valuation; Determination of valuation;
Remand.

Case Arising From
Order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division) / Fast Track Court,
Bulandshahr in Original Suit No. 01 of 2015
(Pramod Kumar and Others v. Sheeshram and
Others).

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Abhishek Gupta, Sri
Chandra Bhan Gupta
For the Respondents:
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal under Section
6-A of the Court Fees Act, 1870 has been
preferred by the plaintiffs against the
impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed
by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast
Track Court, Bulandshahr, in Original Suit
No. 01 of 2015, Pramod Kumar (deceased)
and others vs. Sheeshram and others,
whereby the court fees for the relief of
cancellation of sale deeds has been ordered
to be paid ad-valorem on the market value
of the disputed property.

2. The plaintiffs claimed the
following reliefs in the original suit:-

 "A. By decree of declaration
granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the sale
deed
dated
22.01.2014
executed
by
defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1,
which was registered in Book No.1, Jild
No.2554 at pages 143-212 at Sr. No.755 in
the office of Sub-Registrar, Syana be
declared null and void.

 B. By decree of declaration
granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the sale
deed
dated
23.01.2014
executed
by
defendant no. 4 and 5 in favour of
defendant no.1, which was registered in
Book No.1, Jild No.2555 at pages 37-74 at
Sr. No.794 in the office of Sub-Registrar,
Syana be declared null and void.

 C. By decree of declaration
granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the sale
deed
dated
18.10.2014
executed
by
defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant
no.2, which was registered in Book No.1,
Jild No.2826 at pages 289-320 at Sr.
No.10214 in the office of Sub-Registrar,
Syana be declared null and void.

 D. By decree of mandatory
injunction granted in favour of the
plaintiffs against defendant no.1 to 6, the
defendants be directed to remove the illegal
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
constructions from the ABCD property of
the plaintiffs, after demolishing them and to
restore the property in it's original
condition.

 E. The cost of the suit be awarded
to the plaintiffs against the defendants first
party.

 F. Any other relief which the
Court deems fit and appropriate in the facts
and circumstances of the case may also be
granted to the plaintiffs against the
defendants first party."

3. In the plaint, the plaintiffs
valued the above reliefs as under:-

4. Relief 'A', 'B' and 'C' were
valued according to the consideration
mentioned in the sale deed at Rs.20 lacs, 11
lacs and 10 lacs, respectively. Relief 'D'
was valued at Rs.1 lac on the basis of the
market value of the disputed construction.

5. In this way, the plaintiff valued
the whole suit at Rs.42 lacs and has paid
for the reliefs A, B and C, court fees of
Rs.200/- each in accordance with Article 17
(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act,
1870 and for the relief 'D' maximum court
fees of Rs. 500/- was paid, as such, plaintiff
paid a total court fees of Rs.1,100/-

6. The trial court concluded that for
the above reliefs, the plaintiff has paid a
court fees of Rs.1,100/-, which was
inadequate because the plaintiff was
seeking declaration that the above sale
deeds were void and, as such, the plaintiff
was bound to pay court fees in accordance
with Section 7 (iv-A) of the Court Fees
Act, 1870, as amended in U.P. The trial
court also noted that if the plaintiff or his
predecessors in title were not a party to the
above sale deeds,then the suit is to be
valued according to 1/5th of the value of
the subject matter.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffappellant submits that the impugned order
of the trial court is erroneous because the
trial court has not considered the fact that
the plaintiff or his predecessors were not
the parties to the alleged sale deeds, which
are sought to be cancelled, as such, the trial
court should have ordered that only 1/5th
value of the subject matter is to be taken
into consideration and accordingly, advalorem court fees should have been
ordered to be paid.

8.
I
have
considered
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the plaintiff-appellant and have perused
the impugned order as well as the
documents filed by the appellant.

9. It is apparent that the plaintiff is
seeking the relief of declaring three sale
deeds null and void and mandatory
injunction. The plaintiff has valued the
relief of declaring the sale deeds null and
void on the basis of their consideration,
which is Rs.20 lacs, 11 lacs and 10 lacs,
respectively. The plaintiff has valued the
relief of mandatory injunction according to
the
market
value
of
the
disputed
construction, which is Rs.1 lac.

10. From the perusal of the
impugned order, it is not evident on which
basis the trial court has determined the
market value of the reliefs claimed by the
plaintiff, on the date of filing of the suit.
11. Section 7 (iv-A) of The Court
Fees Act, 1870 (as applicable in Uttar
Pradesh), reads as under:-
 (iv-A)
For
cancellation
or
adjudging void instruments and decrees.-
10 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Sheeshram & Ors.
907
(iv-A) In suit for or involving cancellation
of or adjudging void or voidable a decree
for money or other properly having a
market value, or an instrument securing
money or other property having such value
:

 (1) where the plaintiff or his
predecessor-in-title was a party to the
decree or the instrument, according to the
value of the subject-matter, and

 (2) where he or his predecessorin-title was not a party to the decree or
instrument, according to one-fifth of the
value of the subject-matter, and such value
shall be deemed to be-

 if the whole decree or instrument
is involved in the suit, the amount for which
or value of the property in respect of which
the decree was passed or the instrument
executed, and if only a part of the decree or
instrument is involved in the suit, the
amount or value of the property to which
such part relates.

 Explanation. - 'The value of the
properly' for the purposes of this subsection, shall be the market-value, which in
the case of immovable property shall be
deemed to be the value as computed in
accordance with sub-section (v), (v-A) or
(v-B), as the case may be.

12. The Apex Court in the case of
Shailendra
Bhardwaj
&
Others
vs.
Chandra Pal & Another (2013) 1 SCC
579, held as under:-

 "8.
On
comparing
the
abovementioned provisions, it is clear that
Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court
Fees Act is applicable in cases where the
plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory
decree without any consequential relief and
there is no other provision under the Act
for payment of fee relating to relief
claimed. Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the
Court Fees Act makes it clear that this
article is applicable in cases where the
plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory
decree without consequential reliefs and
there is no other provision under the Act
for payment of fee relating to relief
claimed. If there is no other provision
under the Court Fees Act in case of a suit
involving
cancellation
or
adjudging/declaring void or voidable a will
or sale deed on the question of payment of
court fees, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule
II shall be applicable. But if such relief is
covered by any other provisions of the
Court Fees Act, then Article 17(iii) of
Schedule II will not be applicable. On a
comparison between the Court Fees Act
and the U.P. Amendment Act, it is clear
that Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment
Act
covers
suits
for
or
involving
cancellation or adjudging/declaring null
and void decree for money or an instrument
securing money or other property having
such value.

9. The suit, in this case, was filed
after the death of the testator and,
therefore, the suit property covered by the
will has also to be valued. Since Section
7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act
specifically provides that payment of court
fee in case where the suit is for or involving
cancellation or adjudging/declaring null
and void decree for money or an
instrument, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of
the Court Fees Act would not apply. The
U.P.
Amendment
Act,
therefore,
is
applicable in the present case, despite the
fact that no consequential relief has been
claimed. Consequently, in terms of Section
7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amendment Act, the
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court fees have to be computed according
to the value of the subject-matter and the
trial court as well as the High Court have
correctly held so.
 *****

 11. The plaintiff, in the instant
case, valued the suit at Rs 30 lakhs for the
purpose
of
pecuniary
jurisdiction.
However, for the purpose of court fee, the
plaintiff paid a fixed court fee of Rs 200
under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the
Court Fees Act. The plaintiff had not
noticed the fact that the abovementioned
article stood amended by the State, by
adding the words ?not otherwise provided
for by this Act?. Since Section 7(iv-A) of the
U.P. Amended Act specifically provides for
payment of court fee in case where the suit
is
for
or
involving
cancellation
or
adjudging/declaring void or voidable an
instrument securing property having money
value, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the
Court Fees Act shall not be applicable."

13. The Allahabad High Court in
the case of Smt. Bibbi & Another vs.
Sagun Chandra & Others 1967 SCC
OnLine All 79 (Full Bench), held as
under:-

 "12. The next thing to be seen is
whether the suits fall within any of the
categories mentioned in the first portion of
Sec. 7(iv-A). In what circumstances a suit
has to be regarded as one for cancellation
of an instrument and in what others as one
for merely obtaining a declaratory decree
has been a matter on which there has been
considerable divergence of view in the
decided
cases.
The
divergence
has,
however, lost its significance in the State of
U.P., in view of Sec. 7(iv-A) introduced into
the Court Fees Act by U.P. Act XIX of
1938. The section has a very wide compass.
It covers not merely suits for cancellation
of instruments described therein but also
for adjudging them void or voidable, and it
goes further and embraces not only suits
for cancellation of such instruments or
adjudging them void or voidable but also
suits
involving
such
cancellation
or
adjudging. On the scope of the first portion
of the section, therefore, it is not necessary
to refer to authorities. I may, however,
mention a Division Bench case of this
Court, Mst. Jileba v. Parmeshara [A.I.R.
1949 Alld. 641.] , where it was held that
Sec. 7(iv-A) has been so worded that even
though the plaintiff has not claimed the
relief of cancelling or adjudging void or
voidable an instrument, if the suit involves
such cancellation or adjudging void or
voidable such instrument, court-fee under
Sec. 7(iv-A) is payable.

 13. In regard to this aspect of the
question the learned Judge before whom
these matters initially came up for decision
referred to Kishan Lal v. A.S. Higher
Secondary School Jahangirabad [1963
A.L.J. 353.] and observed that he was
unable to reconcile that decision with Ram
Kumar v. Damodar Das [A.I.R. 1949 Alld.
535.] . To my mind, I say so with great
respect, there is no conflict between the two
decisions. I have already stated the nature
of the suit with which the latter decision
dealt, and there can be tittle room for doubt
that the suit involved adjudging void or
voidable the two sale deeds executed in
favour of the vendees who were parties to
the suit. The plaintiffs expressly stated in
the plaint that the sale deeds were not
executed for legal necessity and were not
binding on them and they apparently
prayed for a partition of their shares in the
properties which had been sold away. In
these circumstances Sec. 7(iv-A) obviously
applied. In Kishan Lal v. A.S. Higher
10 All. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Sheeshram & Ors.
909
Secondary School Jahangirabad [1963
A.L.J. 353.] the suit was for a declaration
that a sale deed and a waqf deed executed
by a Hindu widow were not binding on the
plaintiff on her death as the alienations
were without legal necessity and not for the
benefit of the estate. Advalorem court-fee
under Sec. 7(iv-A) was paid on one-fifth of
the value of the property covered by the
two deeds. So far as these deeds went there
was no dispute as to the sufficiency of the
court-fee. The defendants contested the
suit, inter alia, on the ground that the lady
was not a limited owner but an absolute
owner, having inherited the property from
her husband under a will. The plaintiff, in
his
plaint,
had
made
no
reference
whatsoever to the will and had completely
ignored it. After the filing of the written
statement by the defendants, however, the
plaintiff denied the genuineness of the will
alleging that it was a forgery but he took no
other plea in respect of it. The suit was
dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiff
then filed, a first appeal in this Court. The
Chief Inspector of Stamps reported that
since the appellant in effect wanted
cancellation of the will on its being
adjudged to be void or viodable in addition
to the relief of adjudging the deeds of sale
and waqf void or voidable he should have
paid additional court-fee for being relieved
from the will in respect of the property
involved in the suit. The Division Bench
rejected the re port and held that no
additional court-fee was required. I have
already noted that not only was there a
total absence of any relief in respect of the
will but there was also no reference to it in
the plaint. The stand taken by the plaintiff
in reply to the defence based upon the will
could not be taken into account in
determining the court-fee payable for the
suit, but in his reply too he did not say that
the will was void or voidable and
repudiated the very existence of the will by
describing it as a forgery. The nature of the
suit in than case was, therefore, essentially
different from that of the suit in Ram
Kumar v. Damodar Das [A.I.R. 1949 Alld.
535.] , and it cannot be said that the
decision in the former case is in any
manner opposed to the decision in the
latter.

 14. The reliefs claimed in the
suits which have led up to these appeals
make it clear that the suits are for
adjudging the sale deed void or voidable. It
is true that the relief claimed in suit No. 48
of 1956, unlike the relief claimed in suit
No. 3 of 1957, does not mention the word
?void? or ?voidable? in connection with
the declaration sought. But the absence of
the word ?void? or ?voidable? in the relief
is a matter of not much consequence in
deciding whether a suit is for adjudging a
deed void or voidable or involves such
adjudging. In suit No. 48 of 1956 also the
plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that
the sale deed is ?illegal, without authority
and not binding on the plaintiff or her onethird share.? Evidently, that suit too, like
suit No. 3 of 1957, is for adjudging the sale
deed void or voidable. Both the suits,
therefore, fall squarely within the four
corners of Sec. 7(iv-A), and Article 17(iii)
of Schedule II which applies only to suits
not otherwise provided for does not come
into play."
14. It is apparent that the plaintiff
has valued the suit on the basis of
consideration mentioned in the above sale
deeds, which is erroneous, because the
market value of the property involved in
the above sale deeds is to be considered on
the date of the filing of the suit, but the trial
court has ignored this fact.
15. It is also apparent that the trial
court did not send Amin Commission and
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
obtain report from the office of SubRegistrar concerned in order to ascertain
the true market value of the disputed
properties involved in the three sale deeds
and also the market value of the disputed
construction regarding which the relief of
mandatory injunction was claimed. The
trial court is directed to send Amin
Commission on the spot for ascertaining
the market value of the disputed property,
which includes the value of the land and
superstructure standing on it, in accordance
with the rules framed by the U.P.
Government under the Stamp Act, 1899
and then determine the correct market
value of the disputed property. The trial
court is also directed to ascertain, whether
the predecessors of the plaintiffs were one
of the parties in the disputed sale deeds.
16. In view of the above facts, the
trial court has erred in passing the
impugned order without going through the
relevant provisions and without examining
the matter in right perspective.

17. Accordingly, this appeal has
merits and is liable to be allowed at the
admission stage.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is
hereby allowed. The impugned order dated
28.04.2025, is hereby set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the trial court for
deciding the issue of valuation and court
fees according to the observations made in
this order, after hearing both the parties, in
accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 910
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.
First Appeal From Order No. 2081 of 2025

Mateshwari Devi & Anr.. ...Appellants
Versus
Vidyakant Pandey & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Devansh Misra, Saurabh Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Rahul Sahai

Issue for Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court was justified
in setting aside the order of the Trial Court
rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d)
C.P.C. on the ground of limitation, and in
remanding the matter for adjudication, holding
that the question of limitation in the facts of the
case was a mixed question of law and fact
requiring framing of issues and leading of
evidence.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O.7
R.11(d), O.43 R.1(u) - Limitation Act,
1963 - Art.59 - Rejection of plaint - Suit
for cancellation of sale deed - Bar of
limitation - Date of knowledge - Mixed
question of law and fact - Scope of
scrutiny under Order VII Rule 11 -
Averments in plaint alone relevant -
Remand by First Appellate Court - No
substantial question of law - Appeal
dismissed.

Held:
While considering an application under Order
VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C., the Court is required to
confine itself strictly to the averments made in
the plaint, and the assertions contained in the
written statement or in the application seeking
rejection of plaint are wholly immaterial at that
stage. The power under Order VII Rule 11 being
drastic in nature, it can be exercised only where
the bar of limitation is apparent on the face of
the plaint. [Paras 23, 26]

In a suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed, the
period of limitation is governed by Article 59 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, under which limitation
commences from the date when the facts