Let her file case 

no need to bow down to pressure tactics 

her claim is barred by limitation 

Principal's claim is legally weak and likely to fail.

Key Legal Issues

Limitation Period: Money recovery claims have a 3-year limitation period from when debt becomes due. Since the transaction happened in 2000, the limitation expired around 2003 - making the claim time-barred by 22 years.

Adverse Possession: With 25 years of continuous possession, paying taxes, and proper documentation, the current owners have acquired adverse possession rights (12-year requirement satisfied twice over).

Legal Presumption: Sale deed clearly mentioning consideration as received creates strong presumption of payment.

Recommendation

Fight the case - Principal's legal position is extremely weak due to:

• Severe limitation bar (22 years overdue)

• Strong adverse possession rights

• Legal presumption against her claim

Only consider settlement if the threatened amount is very small compared to litigation costs and harassment potential.

Defensive Strategy: Maintain documentation of continuous 25-year possession, tax payments, and the original sale deed showing consideration received.

- Since, you have not purchased the said land from her i.e. Principal hence she cannot recover the amount from you on any ground

- Further, the limitation period for filing the petition was 3 years , and hence no case will be maintainable now . 

She cannot claim the sale deed as void at this point of time after 25 years of sale of property.

Besides the sale deed cannot be cancelled even if the sale consideration amount was not fully paid, the owner can only file a money recovery suit against the seller/power agent  and the buyer and that also she can file only within three years from the date of transaction and not at this belated stage.

You don't worry about her threats, let she file the suit, the court may not even entertain the suit which is barred by limitation. 

- Firstly , if she has withdraw the said case without the opportunity to re-file order , then she cannot file the same case on the same ground 

- Further, even if there is an order to re-file opportuning then also her case will not maintainable after so long period , and specially when she is not in possession of the property. 

it would benefit your case that she has with drawn earlier case filed by her 

if no sale consideration was received by her she should have sought recovery of the money received by POA 

No he can’t as I’d you have paid him through banking channel or in agreement then it’s final

If you have been impleaded as a party you can express innocence about her allegations and object to her claim stating that the case is badly barred barred by limitation and bad for not impleading the necessary parties to the suit and also on the basis of resjudicata.

You have stated that she has not yet filed any case, hence you wait until she files one hence don't be frustrated by such hasty conclusions.

Dear Client,

In India, a person seeking to challenge the title or recover possession of a property must act within 12 years from the date possession became adverse to their interest. After 12 years of uninterrupted and open possession by another party, courts will generally refuse to entertain fresh claims regarding title or unpaid amounts since they are legally time-barred. Old allegations about consideration not being received in a registered sale, long after transfer and continuous possession, are extremely unlikely to succeed once the limitation period has expired.The law in India is strict about limitation periods for property disputes and recovery of money. Once 12 years have passed since the alleged adverse possession started—or 3 years from when the money (sale consideration) was supposedly due—the limitation period closes and courts will not usually hear such cases. This protects those who have been in open, undisputed possession for many years, making old and delayed claims very unlikely to succeed. Even if there was no proof of payment, the person claiming must act quickly, otherwise the right is lost by law. I hope this answer helps. For any more queries, do not hesitate to contact us.

• Do not rush to settle unless she serves a proper legal notice or files a case.
• If she does file, you can seek dismissal at the admission stage itself on limitation and maintainability grounds.
• Maintain all property records — mutation, tax receipts, electricity bills, and possession proof — these will strengthen your defense.
• Avoid engaging in informal talks or paying her anything; that could be used as admission later.

She has no valid cause of action after 25 years, especially since she already filed and withdrew an earlier case. The sale deed and long, peaceful possession in your name protect your title. Let her file if she wants; the law is strongly in your favor.

No need to seek any settlement with her, you have following  grounds in your favour…

1. Suit is hit by limitation, she had only three years to seek payment, which lapsed long back, not 12 years.
2. She filed suit for recovery of possession and declaration of title. Dispute as to payment of consideration not raised. A suit should include all claims, any claim relinquished can be ascertained again. 
3. Any dispute as payment to principle is matter between her and attorney. You are a innocent buyer from valid GPA.
4. Once a suit is withdrawn it is hit by Order II Rule, she cannot reagitate the dispute again.
5. Withdrawal of suit amounts of relinquishment of claim, which cannot be reagitated.

No Benefit to Principal - Different Causes of Action

Withdrawn possession case (2006-2019) provides NO protection for money recovery claim.

Key Legal Points

1. Different Causes of Action

• Possession suit vs money recovery are separate causes of action

• Possession claim runs from dispossession date

• Money claim runs from non-payment date (2000)

2. Limitation Rules

• Money recovery: 3-year limitation from 2000 = expired by 2003

• Withdrawn case effect: Order 23 Rule 2 - "plaintiff bound by limitation as if first suit had not been instituted"

• No Section 14 benefit for voluntary withdrawals

3. Legal Reality

• Principal's possession case withdrawal in 2019 cannot revive time-barred money claim

• Different limitation periods apply to different causes

• Courts show no sympathy for stale claims beyond limitation

Bottom Line

Principal's money claim is completely time-barred - expired 22 years ago. Previous possession case is irrelevant to money recovery limitation. Courts consistently reject such delayed claims regardless of previous litigation.

Fight confidently - her legal position remains hopeless.

Since the 2000 sale deed clearly records full payment of consideration, the transaction is legally valid, and the principal cannot now claim non-receipt of money after 25 years. Any claim for refund or declaration is barred by limitation (3 years for recovery of money and 12 years for possession). Her earlier 2006 suit for declaration and possession, which she withdrew in 2019, gives her no fresh cause of action, as withdrawal without liberty to refile does not extend limitation. The sale through a registered GPA holder is legally binding, and since you are in continuous possession, paying taxes and holding khata, your title remains strong. She can still file a case, but it would likely be dismissed as time-barred and frivolous. Do not settle or pay-instead, keep all title, tax, and mutation records ready. If she threatens or files, you can contest and seek dismissal under the Limitation Act and cite her earlier withdrawal to show abuse of process.

The property sale executed in 2000 through a registered GPA holder is legally valid, and the subsequent threats by the original owner to reopen the matter after nearly 25 years are without legal foundation. When a registered sale deed is executed by an authorized GPA holder, the law presumes that the sale is complete and that the consideration mentioned in the document has been received. A registered deed carries a statutory presumption of correctness, and under the Indian Evidence Act, no oral claim can be entertained to contradict what is recorded in it. Since the sale deed clearly states that ₹4 lakhs were paid in full and the transaction was in cash (which was permissible in 2000), no fresh dispute can now be raised about the payment.

The original owner had already filed a civil case in 2006 seeking declaration and possession, claiming that the GPA holder acted beyond authority. That case remained pending for several years and was ultimately withdrawn in 2019. Once a case is withdrawn without specific permission to refile, the same person cannot file a fresh case on the same cause of action as per Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, she cannot reopen the issue under a different pretext such as non-payment of the sale amount, since it arises from the same original transaction that she had already challenged and abandoned.

Her claims are also hopelessly time-barred. The limitation period to challenge a sale deed or claim unpaid consideration is long expired — three years for money claims and twelve years for property or possession disputes. The earlier withdrawn case does not extend or reset the limitation period because voluntary withdrawal means the claim ends as if it was never filed. Courts do not show sympathy merely because a party alleges non-receipt of payment after decades, especially when the registered document shows otherwise.

Even if she tries to allege that the GPA holder acted fraudulently or that payment was not actually received, she will not succeed. The GPA was registered, and the sale deed recorded full payment. The GPA holder is now deceased, and there is no living witness to contradict the written record. Oral allegations cannot override a registered sale deed, which carries legal finality unless a court finds actual fraud with concrete proof. No such proof exists here.

You also hold a strong factual position. You have been in continuous, undisputed possession of the land, your name is recorded in the Katha register, and you have regularly paid property taxes. These records establish lawful ownership and are powerful evidence before any court. Long possession coupled with proper mutation and payment of taxes makes your title nearly unassailable.

If she now files a fresh case, your defense will rest on clear grounds: the transaction was valid and fully executed; the claim is barred by limitation; she withdrew her earlier case and cannot revive it; and you are bona fide purchasers in lawful possession. If such a case is filed, you can seek immediate rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that it is barred by law and limitation.

You should not offer any settlement or payment to her at this stage. Doing so may amount to acknowledging a false claim and could weaken your position. It is better to let her proceed if she wants; her case would be dismissed at an early stage. If her threats continue, you may file a police complaint under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal intimidation and harassment.

To conclude, the sale deed of 2000 remains valid and binding. The seller’s attempt to revive the matter after 25 years, particularly after withdrawing her own earlier case, has no legal basis. You are the lawful owner, and no claim of non-payment can undo a registered transaction after such a long time. The facts, documents, and law all support your position, so you can confidently maintain possession without settling or conceding to any unfounded demands.