THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963
Adv. Manu Krishna S.K
Mob-9995400709
TOPIC 1
INTRODUCTION
The foundation of the law of limitation rests upon two fundamental maxims:
"Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium," which underscores the
importance of bringing an end to litigation in the interest of the state as a
whole, and "vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunt," which
emphasizes that the law will only aid those who are vigilant in asserting their
rights and not those who neglect them.
In essence, the law of limitation sets forth the prescribed time period within
which a person must initiate a legal proceeding or bring a legal action. If a
lawsuit is filed after this stipulated period has lapsed, it becomes barred by
limitation. This means that the court will not entertain a suit brought after
the expiration of the legally mandated timeframe for initiating legal
proceedings. The purpose of such limitations is to promote judicial
efficiency, prevent undue delay in the resolution of disputes, and encourage
parties to assert their rights promptly.
History of the Act
The evolution of the law of limitation culminated in the enactment of the
Limitation Act of 1963, which replaced earlier legislations. Prior to 1859,
there was no comprehensive law of limitation applicable to all of India. It
was in 1859 that Act XIV of 1859 was introduced, marking the first
legislation on limitation that applied across all courts. Subsequent to this,
various iterations of the Limitation Act were enacted and repealed, including
those in the years 1871, 1877, and 1908.
The Limitation Act of 1908, although a significant step forward, primarily
addressed limitations concerning foreign contracts. However, recognizing
the need for a more comprehensive framework, the Third Law Commission
repealed the 1908 Act. In its place, the Limitation Act of 1963 was enacted,
which expanded the scope of limitations to contracts entered into within the
territory of Jammu and Kashmir or in foreign countries.
This progression in legislation reflects a concerted effort to refine and
consolidate the law of limitation, ensuring its relevance and applicability to
the evolving legal landscape of India.
Object and Scheme of the Act
The Law of Limitation serves to establish a timeframe within which rights
can be enforced in a Court of Law. This timeframe for various types of legal
actions is detailed in the schedule of the Act. The primary objective of this
legislation is to prevent prolonged litigation and ensure the expeditious
disposal of cases, thereby promoting effective judicial proceedings.
With the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act in 2019,
the provisions of the Limitation Act now apply uniformly across the entirety
of India. The Limitation Act of 1963 encompasses provisions pertaining to
the calculation of time for the limitation period, the condonation of delays,
and other related matters.
Comprising 32 sections and 137 articles, the Limitation Act is organized into
10 distinct parts, each addressing specific aspects of limitation law. This
comprehensive framework ensures clarity and consistency in the application
of limitation principles, facilitating the fair and efficient resolution of legal
disputes.
Bar of Limitation
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with bar of limitation. It is
mandatory for the court to dismiss the suit instituted, appeal preferred or
application made beyond the period of limitation. Section 4 says if any
prescribed period for any suit, appeal, or application expires on a day when
the court is closed, it can be made on the day when the court re-opens. It is
based on the maxim “lex non cogi at impossibilia” which means that the law
does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform.
TOPIC 2
POWERS OF THE COURT TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION
The court may grant extension of the period of limitation in the
following cases or proceedings:
By virtue of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, if the applicant satisfies the
court that he has the “sufficient cause” for not preferring appeals or making
application within the prescribed period then the court may extend the period
of limitation if it thinks fit. The section does not apply to suits.
The term “sufficient cause” implies that the cause must be reasonable
and just. There must not be any negligence or inaction or want of bonafide
on the part of the applicant. It is the discretionary power of the court.
The following examples will interpret the term ‘Sufficient cause’:
1. Illness
Generally illness of the applicant is not a sufficient cause for the
delay. However in Gaurishankar v. Kasinath
1
, the court held that high fever
coupled with delirium by which the applicant was absolutely confined to
bed, could be accepted as sufficient cause for the delay of 4 days.
2. Mistaken Legal Advice
If the advice tendered by legal practitioner misl0eads the applicant
then it is generally not a ground of excuse under the term sufficient cause.
However in Rajendra Bhagdur v. Rejeswar Pillai
2
. it was held that a
bonafide mistake made by pleader of experience can be excused on the
ground of sufficient cause.
3. Mistake of Law
Ignorance of law is not excusable (Ignorantia juris non excusat) and
hence not a sufficient cause for the court, to extend the period of limitation.
However if it is a mistake of foreign law or mistake of law which is
committed bonafide in spite of due care and attention it is excusable, and
limitation period can be extended.
4. Poverty
The poverty of an ordinary man is not a sufficient cause. However in
extreme cases, the court would consider the matter with sympathy.
5.Minority
The minor has no privilege in the matter of limitation. If the guardian
is negligent or careless, then the child’s right to sue after the limitation
period does not survive.
6. Marriage
1
AIR 1934 ALL 367.
2
AIR 1937 P.C.276.
In Sandhya Rani v.Sudha Rani (1978), it was held that delay due to
the applicant's marriage was not sufficient cause.
7. Imprisonment
In Collector of Balasore v. Ashutosh
3
, it was held that imprisonment
in jail may be a sufficient cause and the time spent in jail may be deducted.
8. Pardanashin Lady
It can be considered as a sufficient cause only if the applicant is such
a person whose legal interests are not prosecuted.
9. Proceedings in Wrong Court
In Mahabt v.Bhardwaj,
4
where an appeal was preferred to a wrong
court under the bonafide belief that the appeal lay, it was held that the
appellant is entitled to deduct the time during which the appeal was pending
in wrong court.
9. Ignorance of Fact
In Union v. Ramachan
5
, it was held that when a party died and that
fact is not known to the legal representatives who are to be impleaded, there
is sufficient cause.
3
AIR 1963 ORI 102.
4
15 ALJ 200.
5
AIR 1964 SC 215.
Supreme court laid down certain guidelines for applying the doctrine
of " Sufficient Cause" in State of W.B v. Administrator. Following are the
guide lines:
1. It must be a cause which was beyond the control of the party invoking
it.
2. He must not be guilty of negligence. His diligence and care must be
shown.
3. His intention must be bonafide.
TOPIC 3
LEGAL DISABILITY (SEC 6 - 7)
Limitation Act 1963 prescribes the maximum period within which a
suit can be instituted, an appeal can be preferred or an application is made.
Sec. 6 of the limitation Act deals with the rules relating to the legal disability
and its impact on period of limitation. Whenever a person is having the
prescribed legal disability the Act excludes that period for the purpose of
computing the period of limitation. He may institute the suit or make the
application within the same period after the disability has ceased. This
provision applies only if the disability is in existence at the time when the
limitation begins to run. The legal disability recognised under the Act are
1) Minority 2) Idiocy 3) Lunacy. Law recognises no other ground for
extending the period of limitation. The affect of legal disability is that it
extends the period of limitation. It does not prevent the period from running.
Once the period of limitation has started, no subsequent disability stops it.
Essentials of Legal Disability
1. Disability must be Continuous
If a person entitled to sue is minor and becomes insane before he
attains majority time would be extended. In other words, the disability must
overlap each other. Again if he died during his insanity and his legal
representative is minor the extension of time would be allowed both to the
minor and his legal representative.
2. The Disability must be of a Person Entitled to Sue or Apply for Execution
In other words this privilege is extended only to the plaintiffs and not
to the defendants. The section does not apply to a case of subsequent
disability but applies to a case of initial disability. The disability should be in
existence at the time when the limitation begins to run. In Audhesh singh v.
Rajeswari Singh the Allahabad High court ruled that a person who was not
in existence on the date when the cause of action had arisen, couldn't claim
the benefit of Section 6.
Where a person is under one disability, before it ceases he is affected
by another disability, he may institute the suit or make the application within
the same period after both disabilities have ceased.
Section 7 deals with the situation in which one of several persons
jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an application for execution of a
decree is under disability, if discharge can be given without the concurrence
of such person, time will run against them all. But, where no discharge can
be given time will not run against them all.
3. Continuous Running of Time
It is one of the fundamental principle of limitation. It can be generally
stated that when once time has commenced to run it will not cease to do so
by reason of any subsequent event. Section 9 say where once time has begin
to run no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an
application can stop it
4. Applicability
Section 9 is applicable only when the disability occurs after the period
of limitation has started. It has no application in cases of initial disability.
This section is applicable to both suits and applications
Exceptions
1. When the letters of administration to the estate are granted to his
debtor.
6
2. In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, an
application for leave to appeal and an application for a review of
judgment, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree,
sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised shall be
excluded.
7
3. The time taken for prosecuting an application for leave to sue, as
pauper shall be excluded if such leave is necessary.
8
4. When the plaintiff has been prosecuting another proceeding bonafide
in a court without jurisdiction.
9
6
Proviso to S.9.
7
S.12.
8
S.13.
5. When the defendant is absent from India.
10
6. When an injunction or order has been obtained to stay the institution
of suit.
11
7. When notice has been given before the institution of suit in
accordance with law, the limitation will be suspended during the
period of notice.
12
8. In a suit for possession by a purchases at an execution sale, the
limitation will be suspended during the time for which the proceeding
to set aside the sale has been prosecuted.
13
9. Where the person dies on or before the accrual of the right to sue.
14
Illustration
A, B and C are 3 shareholders in a company. They have to file a suit
against their company. Mr. C had a legal disability. According to sec .7 if C
can be discharged without the concurrence of such persons, time will run
against them all. i.e. A and B must file the suit within the limitation period
and they need not wait until the disability has ceased, i.e. A, B and C can file
the suit jointly within the prescribed time and after the removal of disability
of C.
In Kanchedilat v. Ranjeet Kachhi
15
, it was held that where copies of
the judgment or decrees are obtained, but are not available for being filed
9
S.14.
10
S.15.
11
S.15.
12
S.15.
13
S.15.
14
S.16.
15
AIR 1960 MP 140.
owing to their loss or other cause and subsequently another application for
copies is made and an appeal is filed with these copies, the time requisite of
appeal should be excluded and not the time spent in obtaining the copies in
the first instance.
In B.S. Mahadeva v. Ram Krisha
16
, the debtor was a partnership firm.
One of the partners retired and the firm was dissolved. The other partners
kept the matter of dissolution secret and the business was continued under
the old name. The creditor had no knowledge of dissolution of the firm. In
this case court held that an acknowledgment or payment by the continuing
partner keeps alive the debt against the retiring partners also.
In Babu alias Vrajlal Ratna Sey v.Dayambai
17
, a partnership firm was
dissolved due to the death of a partner. A surviving partner acknowledged
the debt. The court held that such an acknowledgement is binding on the
heirs of the deceased partner, where it is not proved that the creditor had
notice of such dissolution.
TOPIC 4
EXCLUSION OF TIME
Exclusion of Time in Legal Proceedings
By virtue of S.12 (1) of the Act in computing the period of limitation
for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be
reckoned, shall be excluded.
By virtue of S.12 (2) of the Act in computing the period of limitation
for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for
review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was
16
(1925) 50 MLJ 67.
17
ILR (1935) 60 Bom.5.
pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree,
sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be
excluded.
S. 12 (3) states that where a decree or order is appealed from or
sought to be revised or reviewed, or where an application is made for leave
to appeal from a decree or order, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
the judgment on which the decree or order is founded shall also be excluded.
By virtue of S.12 (4) of the Act in computing the period of limitation
for an application to set aside an award, the time requisite for obtaining a
copy of the award shall be excluded.
Explanation to the above proviso states that in computing under this
section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an order, any
time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application
for a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded.
2. Exclusion of Time in Cases Where Leave to Sue or Appeal as a Pauper is
Applied for
By virtue of S.13 of the Act in computing the period of limitation
prescribed for any suit or appeal in any case where an application for leave
to sue or appeal as a pauper has been made and rejected, the time during
which the applicant has been prosecuting in good faith his application for
such leave shall be excluded, and the court may, on payment of the court
fees prescribed for such suit or appeal, treat the suit or appeal as having the
same force and effect as if the court fees had been paid in first instance.
3. Exclusion of Time of Proceeding bona fide in Court Without Jurisdiction
Section 14(1) of the Act states that in computing the period of
limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been
prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceedings, whether in a court
of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be
excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is
prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other
cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
Section 14(2) of the Act states that in computing the period of
limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been
prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court
of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same
relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith
in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is
unable to entertain it.
Section 14(3) of the Act states that notwithstanding anything
contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5
of 1908), the provisions of subsection (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh
suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order,
where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail
by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like
nature.
Explanation to the above Section states that for the purposes of
this section;
(a) In excluding the time during which a former civil
proceeding was pending, the day on which that
proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended
shall both be counted;
(b) A plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be
deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;
(c) Misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be
deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of
jurisdiction.
4. Exclusion of Time in Certain Other Cases
By By virtue of S.15 (1) of the Act in computing the period of limitation
of any suit or application for the execution of a decree, the institution or
execution of which has been stayed by injunction or order, the time of the
continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it was issued or
made, and the day on which it was withdrawn, shall be excluded.
By virtue of S.15 (2) of the Act in computing the period of limitation
for any suit of which notice has been giveN or for which the previous
consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required, in
accordance with the requirements of any law for the time being in force the
period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining
such consent or sanction shall be excluded.
Explanation for the above Section states that in excluding the time
required for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any
other authority, the date on which the application was madE for obtaining
the consent or sanction and the date of receipt of the order of the
Government or other authority shall both be counted.
Section 15(3) of the Act states that in computing the period of
limitation for any suit or application for execution of a decree by any
receiver or interim receiver appointed in proceedings for the adjudication of
a person as an insolvent or by any liquidator or provisional liquidator
appointed in proceedings for the winding up of a company, the period
beginning with the date of institution of such proceeding and ending with the
expiry of three months from the day of appointment of such receiver or
liquidator, as the case may be, shall be excluded.
Section 15(3) of the Act states that in computing the period of
limitation for a suit for possession by a purchaser a sale in execution of a
decree, the time during which a proceeding to set aside the sale has been
prosecuted shall be excluded.
Section 15(4) of the Act states that in computing the period of
limitation for any suit the time during which the defendant has been absent
from India and from the territories outside India under the administration of
the Central Government, shall be excluded.
5. Effect of Death on or Before the Accrual of the Right to sue
Section 16(1) of the Act states that where a person who would, if he
were living, have a right to institute a suit or make an application dies before
the right accrues, or where a right to institute a suit or make an application
accrues only on the death of a person, the period of limitation shall be
computed from the time when there is a legal representative of the deceased
capable of instituting such, suit or making such application.
Section 16(2) of the Act states that where a person against whom, if
he were living, a right to institute a suit or make, an application would have
accrued dies before the right accrues, or where a right to institute a suit or
make an application against any person accrues on the death of such person,
the period of limitation shall be computed from the time when there is a
legal representative of the deceased against whom the plaintiff may institute
such suit or make such application.
Section 16(3) of the Act states that nothing in subsection (1) or subsection
(2) applies to suits to enforce rights of pre-emption or to suits for the
possession of immovable property or of a hereditary office.
TOPIC 5
EFFECT OF FRAUD AND MISTAKE (S.17)
It has been said that “the right of a party entitles to get relief from
consequences of fraud or mistake cannot be affected by lapse of time”
According to S.17 of the Act, the effect of fraud or mistake and its
impact on the period of limitation. When there is fraud or mistake found in a
document, a fresh period of limitation is available to challenge it from the
date in which fraud or mistake was found. This section applies to the
following cases:
1.Where the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the
defendant or respondent or his agent.
2. Where the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or
application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person.
3.Where the suit or application is for relief from the consequence of
mistake
4. Where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff
or applicant has fraudulently concealed from him.
The principle underlying this is that where on account of fraud,
mistake or concealment, the other side has remained in dark from the
knowledge of such right or title, the party will get a fresh period of
limitation.
Meaning of Fraud
The word fraud or mistake is not defined in the Act. It may be
described as the procuring of advantage to oneself at the expense of another.
It means active deceit in defrauding or endeavoring to defraud a person of
his rights by artful device or concealment of fact.
In Chinthamani v. Prasad Singh (1974) the court pointed out that the
fraud contemplated by this section is an actual and active fraud to keep the
person in out of knowledge of his right. It has been pointed out that fraud
contemplated under this section is a fraud of the defendant or respondent. It
does not mean the fraud of a third person. It is essential that full particulars
of fraud must be set out in the plaint. A mere allegation of a vague nature of
the existence of fraud is not enough.
Fraud contemplated in S.17 is not confined to fraud committed at the
inception of the cause of action but may include fraud committed even
before that date.
The effect of fraud or mistake is to allow the party a fresh period of
limitation from the date of discovery of the fraud or mistake, i.e. limitation
runs from the date when the fraud or mistake become known to the plaintiff
or the applicant. However the defendant can establish that with reasonable
diligence the plaintiff would have discovered the fraud or mistake earlier,
then the benefit of this section is not available to the plaintiff.
Essential Conditions for Invoking S.17
1. The cause of action has been concealed from the plaintiff by fraud.
2. The fraud is of the defendant.
3) The plaint is in time since the discovery of the fraud.
S.17 applies in the case of suits and applications made in respect of
civil rights.
Exceptions in the Following Circumstance S: 17 will not be Applicable
1. In the case of fraud exception is in favor of benefited purchaser for
valuable consideration provided that he was not party to the frauds and was
not having notice of the fraud.
2. In case of mistake a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration
without notice of the mistake will be protected.
3. In the case of concealment, a purchaser for valuable consideration is
protected when he is not a party to the concealment and did not know that
the document had been concealed.
TOPIC 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DEBT
Sec. 18 provides that before the expiry of the limitation period for a
suit, if an acknowledgement of liability is made in writing by the debtor or
by any other person deriving his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation
shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was signed. If
the writing containing such acknowledgement is not dated then oral
evidence is allowed as to the time when it was signed.
Essentials of Valid Acknowledgement
There are 5 essentials to constitute a valid acknowledgement.
1. Acknowledgment must be made before the expiry of the limitation
period. In other words the acknowledgement must be made at any time after
the limitation period has started running. The term ‘period’ prescribed under
S.18 denotes the first schedule attached to the limitation Act and also any
other Act in force. For eg: Moratorium Act of Tamil Nadu.
In Kampata Prasad v. Gulsarilal, the Allahabad High Court held that
the acknowledgement may be made before the expiry of the limitation
period. But if the limitation period is extended on sufficient grounds,
acknowledgement may be made during such extended period also.
2. Acknowledgement of liability must be in writing. So oral
acknowledgement is not valid. A mere payment of a sum of money towards
the debt is not considered to be acknowledgement unless there is sufficient
intention for making such acknowledgement.
3. The acknowledgement must be signed by the person making the
acknowledgement or by his agent duly authorized by him. An
acknowledgement without signature is not valid. Acknowledgement by
telegram is not also valid. But when the agent acknowledges the debt, the
signature of the actual debtor is not necessary.
4. The acknowledgement must be made by the party against whom
the property is claimed or any other person deriving a title from him . In
other words the person making the acknowledgement must have interest in
the property. If the judgment debtor makes an acknowledgement of some
debt the auction purchaser deriving title from the judgment debtor is bound
by it.
5. Acknowledgement must be in respect of particular properties or right
claimed in the suit or application. So a general acknowledgement is invalid.
But if the debts are incidental then general acknowledgement is also valid. If
the defendant owes several debts to the plaintiff and makes a general
acknowledgement then it is a valid acknowledgement. Time barred debts
cannot be acknowledged and thus a fresh period of limitation cannot be
gained.
In Savithri Kunjamma v. Narayanan
18
, the court held that mere
statement expressing jural relationship between parties does not constitute
acknowledgment.
In Sampuran Singh v.Niranjan Kaur
19
, the Supreme Court observed:
"An acknowledgement should be made during the subsistence of
period of limitation. Acknowledgement of liability after the period of
limitation for filing the suit does not revive period of limitation." S.18 (1)
itself starts with the words "where before expiration of the prescribed period
for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an
acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been
18
1989 (2) KLT 628.
19
1999 (2) KLT SN 83 P. 76.
made". "Thus the acknowledgement, if any, has to be prior to the expiration
of the prescribed period of filing the suit. In other words, if the limitation has
already expired, it would not revive under this section. It is only during
subsistence of a period of limitation, if any, such document is executed, and
the limitation would be revived afresh from the said date of
acknowledgement."
Effect of Acknowledgment
1.The effect of a valid acknowledgment is to give the plaintiff or
applicant a new period of limitation.
2.The acknowledgment does not extinguish the original cause of action
nor creates a new one. It merely confirms the liability.
3.The creditor can recover only that amount specified in the
acknowledgment and no further.
Legal Effect of Acknowledgmen(S.19)
S.19 makes it clear that a fresh period of limitation shall be computed
from the date of acknowledgment .
Substituting or Adding New Plaintiff or Defendant
Section 21 of Limitation Act speaks the effect of substituting or
adding new plaintiff or defendant. It declares that where after the institution
of suit a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall be
deemed to have been instituted when he was made a party. This section
applies only to institution of suit and not to appeal or revision.
In Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur
20
, SC observed that
acknowledgement should be made within subsistence of period of limitation.
Acknowledgement of liability after the period of limitation for filing the suit
does not revive period of limitation.
A person who claims exclusion of time under S.14 of the Limitation
Act, must prove the following:
a) that he had prosecuted the former proceeding in good faith
and with due deligence;
b) that the former proceeding was between the same parties;
c) that the matter in issue was the same;
d) that the former court had been unable to entertain it from
defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature;
e) The burden of proving all the above conditions is on the
plaintiff.
TOPIC 5
ACQUISITION OF EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION (SEC. 25)
Sec.25 of the Limitation Act deals with the law relating to the
acquisition of easement by prescription. Easement is defined in Sec.4 of the
Indian Easement Act. It is a right available to the owner or occupier of one
piece of land to do something in or upon the property of another. Examples
are easement of light, air, support, right of way etc .According to Sec.25,
20
1999(2) KLT SN 83 P.76.
the use of light or air, if it has been enjoyed for a continues period of 20
years, one will get the right in an absolute an indefeasible manner. Where
the property over which a right is claimed belongs to the Government the
period is 30 years. Where a person is in the continued enjoyment of an
easement for more than 20 years and obstruction there is made, he must
bring his suit to establish his right within a period of limitation of such
obstruction, and otherwise his right will be defeated.
Illustration
A suit is brought in 1911 for obstructing a right of way. The defendant
admits the obstruction but denies the right of way. The plaintiff proves that
the right was peaceably and openly enjoyed by him as an easement and as
right, without interruption from 1st January 1980 to 1st Jan. 1910. The
plaintiff is entitled to easement.
Conditions for the Acquisition of the Right to Easement
The right should be enjoyed
1. Peaceably
The enjoyment of an easement must not be by violence or force
2. Openly Except in Case of Light and Air
The enjoyment must have, from the very beginning, been visible and
manifest not secret or clandestine.
3. As an Easement
The claimant must have enjoyed the right as an easement. If there
had been any unity of possession and ownership he could not have enjoyed
an easement.
4. As of Right
In order that an enjoyment should be as of right, the person claiming it
must have exercised it without permission from anyone.
5. Without Interruption
The enjoyment for the period of 20 years must be without
interruption.
Section 27 provides for extinguishment of right to property. Section
says that the determination of the period is hereby limited to any person for
instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property
shall be extinguished.
Conditions
1. This provision is applicable only for suits.
2. Suit must be for possession of property and not for other claims.
3. It must be of a person who has failed to sue for possession within the time
prescribed.
4.There should be a person in adverse possession of the property.
TOPIC 7
LIMITATION IS DIFFERENT
FROM LACHES
In principles of equity the English courts applied the principles of
laches for delayed cases to the court. The limitation is a statutory law,
where as laches is a principle of equity, both however deprived the
plaintiff from getting his remedy after certain fixed period. Limitation is
different from acquiescence. If a party acts in a manner inconsistent
with the right of real owner , and if the real owner does not make any
objection during such acts, then he cannot later on complain about the
rights acquired by the first party. The principles are called acquiescence. It
resembles limitation in the fact that both deprive the person of rights from
establishing hid sights due to delay. Acquiescence is the principle of equity
based on estoppels where as limitation is statutory law. Limitation applies
only to institution or proceeding but not to their continues in a court of law.
Once a petition or plaint is admitted by a court within the limitation
period it is immaterial whether such case is disposed of earlier or after
a prolonged time. Thus the continuance of suit is not affected by the law
limitation.
In Deep Chand v Mohan Lal
21
it was observed that where the
language of a decree is capable of two interpretations, one of which assists
the decree holder to obtain the fruits of the decree and the other prevents him
from taking benefit of the decree, the interpretation which assists the decree
holder should be accepted The purpose of execution proceedings is to enable
the decree holder to obtain the fruits of his decree.
THE SCHEDULE
PERIODS OF LIMITAION
FIRST DIVISON-SUITS
21
(2000) 6.S.C.C. 259.
S.No
Description of Suit
Period of
limitation
Time from which period
begins to run
PART 1- SUITS RELATING TO ACCOUNTS
1
Three years
The close of the year in
which the last item
admitted or proved is
entered in the account;
such year to be computed
as in the account.
2
Three years
When the account is,
during the continuance of
the agency, demanded and
refused or, where no such
demand is made, when the
agency terminates.
3
Three years
When the account is,
during the continuance of
the agency, demanded and
refused or, where no such
demand is made, when the
agency terminates.
4
Three years
When the neglect or
misconduct becomes
known to the plaintiff.
5
Three years
The date of the
dissolution.
PART II – SUITS RALATING TO CONTRACTS
6
Three years
The end of the voyage
during which the wages are
earned.
7
Three years
When the wages accrue
due.
8
Three years
When the food or drink is
delivered.
9
Three years
When the price becomes
payable.
10
Three years
When the loss or injury
occurs.
11
Three years
When the goods ought to
be delivered.
12
Three years
When the hires become
payable.
13
Three years
When the goods ought to
be delivered.
14
Three years
The date of the delivery of
the goods.
15
Three years
When the period of credit
expires
16
Three years
When the period of the
proposed bill elapses.
17
Three years
The date of the sale
18
Three years
When the work is done
19
Three years
When the loan is made
20
Three years
When the cheque is paid.
21
Three years
When the loan is made
22
Three years
When the demand is made.
23
Three years
When the money is paid.
24
Three years
When the money is
received.
25
Three years
When the interest becomes
due.
26
Three years
When The account are
stated in writing signed by
the defendant or his agent
duly authorized in this
behalf, unless where the
debt is, by a simultaneous
agreement in writing
signed as aforesaid, made
payable at a future time,
and then when that time
arrives.
27
Three years
When the time specified
arrives or the contingency
happens.
28
Three years
The day so specified
29
Three years
The date of executing the
bond.
30
Three years
When the condition is
broken.
31
Three years
When he bill or note falls
due.
32
Three years
When the bill is presented
33
Three years
When the bill is presented
at that place.
34
Three years
When the fixed time is
expires.
35
Three years
The date or bill or note.
36
Three years
The expiration of the first
term of payment as to the
part then payment as to the
part then payable; and for
the other parts, the
expiration of the respective
terms of payment.
37
Three years
When the default is made,
unless where the payee or
oblige waives the benefit
of the provision and then
when fresh default is made
in respect of which there is
no such waiver.
38
Three years
The date of the delivery to
the payee.
39
Three years
When the notice is given.
40
Three years
The date of the refusal to
accept
41
Three years
When the acceptor pays the
amount of he bill.
42
Three years
When the surety pays the
creditor.
43
Three years
When the surety pays
anything in excess of his
own share.
44
Three years
The date of the death of the
deceased, or where the
claim on the policy is
denied, either partly or
wholly, the date of such
denial.
Three years
The date of the occurrence
causing the loss, or where
the claim on the policy is
denied, either partly or
wholly, the date of such
denial.
45
Three years
When the insures elect to
avoid the policy.
46
Three years
The date of the payment or
distribution.
47
Three years
The date of the failure.
48
Three years
The date of the payment in
excess of the plaintiff’s
own share.
49
Three years
When the right to
contribution accrues.
50
Three years
The date of the payment.
51
Three years
When the profits are
received.
52
Three years
When the profits are
received.
53
Three years
The time fixed for
completing the sale, or
(where the title is accepted
after the time fixed for
completion) The date of
the acceptance.
54
Three years
The date fixed for the
performance, or, if no such
date is fixed, when the
plaintiff has notice that
performance is reused.
55
Three years
When the contract is
broken or (where there are
successive breaches) when
the suit is instituted occurs
or (where the breach is
continuing) when it ceases.
PART III – SUITS RELATING TO DECLARATIONS
56
Three years
When the issue or
registration becomes
known to the plaintiff.
57
Three years
When the alleged adoption
becomes known to the
plaintiff.
58
Three years
When the right to sue first
accrues.
PART IV – SUITS RELATING TO DECREES AND INSTRUMENTS
59
Three years
When the facts entitling the
plaintiff to have the
instrument or decree
cancelled or set aside or the
contract rescinded first
become known to him
60
Three years
When the ward attained
majority.
61
Thirty years
Twelve years
Three years
When the right to redeem
or to recover possession
accrues;
When the transfer becomes
known to the plaintiff.
When the mortgagor re-
enters on the mortgaged
property.
62
Twelve years
When the money sued for
becomes due.
63
Thirty years
Twelve years
When the money secured
by the mortgaged becomes
due.
When the mortgagee
becomes entitled to
possession.
64
Twelve years
The date of dispossession.
65
Twelve years
When the possession of the
defendant becomes adverse
to the plaintiff.
66
Twelve years
When the forfeiture is
incurred or the condition is
broken.
67
Twelve years
When the tenancy is
determined.
PART VI – SUITS RELATING TO MOVABLE PROPERTY
68
Three years
When the person having
the right to the possession
of the property first learns
in whose possession it is.
69
Three years
When the property is
wrongfully taken.
70
Three years
The date of refusal after
demand.
71
Three years
When the sale becomes
known to the plaintiff.
PART VII – SUITS RALATING TO TORT
72
One year
When the act or omission
takes place.
73
One year
When the imprisonment
ends.
74
One year
When the plaintiff is
acquitted or the
prosecution is otherwise
terminated.
75
One year
When the libel is
published.
76
One year
When the words are
spoken or, if the words are
not actionable in
themselves, when the
special damage complained
of results.
77
One year
When the loss occurs.
78
One year
The date of the breach.
79
One year
The date of the distress.
80
One year
The dare of he seizure.
81
One year
The date of the death of the
person wronged.
82
Two year
The date of the death of the
person killed.
83
Two year
When the wrong
complained of is done.
84
Two year
When the perversion first
becomes known to the
person injured thereby.
85
Three years
The date of the obstruction
86
Three years
The date of the diversion.
87
Three years
The date of trespass.
88
Three years
The date of the
infringement.
89
Three years
When the waste begins.
90
Three years
When the injunction
ceases.
91
Three years
When the person having
the right to the possession
of the property first learns
in whose possession it is.
Three years
When the property is
wrongfully taken or
injured, or when the
retainer’s possession
becomes unlawful.
PART VIII – SUITS RELATING TO TRUSTS AND TRUST PROPERTY
92
Twelve years
When the transfer becomes
known to the plaintiff.
93
Three years
When the transfer becomes
known to the plaintiff.
94
Twelve years
When the transfer becomes
known to the plaintiff.
95
Three years
When the transfer becomes
known to the plaintiff.
96
Twelve years
The date of death,
resignation or removal of
the transferor or the date of
appointment of the plaintiff
as manager of the
endowment, whichever is
later.
PART IX – SUITS RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
97
One year
When the purchaser takes
under the sale sought it be
impeached, physical
possession of the whole or
part of the property sold,
or, where the subject-
matter of the sale does not
admit of physical
possession of the whole or
part of the property, when
the instrument of sale is
registered .
98
One year
The date of the final order.
99
One Year
When the sale is confirmed
or would otherwise have
become final and
conclusive had no such suit
been brought .
100
One year
The date of the final
decision or order by the
court or the date of the at
or order of the officer as
the case may be.
101
Three years
The date of judgment or
recognizance.
102
Three years
When the plaintiff is
restored to sanity and has
knowledge of the
conveyance.
103
Three years
The date of the trustee’s
death or if the loss has not
then resulted, the date of
the loss.
104
Three years
When the plaintiff is first
refused the enjoyment of
the right.
105
Three years
When the arrears are
payable.
106
Twelve years
When the legacy or share
becomes payable or
deliverable.
107
Twelve years
When the defendant takes
possession of the office
adversely to the plaintiff.
108
Twelve years
The date of alienation.
109
Twelve years.
When the alien takes
possession of he property.
110
Twelve years
When the exclusion
becomes known to the
plaintiff.
111
Thirty years
The date of the
dispossession or
discontinuance.
112
Thirty years
When the period of
limitation would begin to
run this Act against a like
suit by a private person.
PART X SUITS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED PERIOD
113
Three years
When the right to sue
accrues.
Second Division – Appeals
114
Ninety days
Thirty days
The date of the order
appealed from.
The date of the grant of
special leave.
115
Thirty days
Sixty days
The date of the sentence
The date of the sentence of
the order.
The date of the sentence or
order.
116
Ninety days
Thirty days
The date of the decree or
order
The date of the decree or
order
117
Thirty days
The date of the decree of
the order.
THIRD DIVISION – APPLICATIONS
PART I – APPLICATION IN SPECIFIED CASES
118
Ten days
When the summons is
served.
119
Thirty days
The date of service of the
notice of the making of the
award.
Thirty days
The date of the service of
the notice of the filing of
the award.
120
Ninety days
The date of death of the
plaintiff, appellant,
defendant or respondent as
the case may be.
121
Sixty days
The date of abatement.
122
Thirty days
The date of dismissal.
123
Thirty days
The date of the decree or
where the summons or
notice was not duly served,
when the applicant had
knowledge of the decree.
124
Thirty days
The date of the decree of
the order
125
Thirty days
When the payment or
adjustment is made.
126
Thirty days
The date of the decree
127
Sixty days (i.e.
Subs. by Act 104
of 1976 for
“Thirty”.
The date of the sale.
128
Thirty days
The date of the
dispossession
129
Thirty days
The date of resistance or
obstruction.
130
Sixty days
Thirty days
The date of decree
appealed from.
The date of decree
appealed from.
131
Ninety days
The date of the decree or
order or sentence sought to
be revised.
132
Sixty days
The date of the decree,
order or sentence.
133
Sixty days
The date of the judgment,
final order or sentence.
Sixty days
The date of the order or
refusal.
Ninety days
The date of the judgment
of the order.
134
One year
When the sale becomes
absolute.
135
Three years
The date of the decree or
where a date is fixed for
performance, such date.
136
Twelve years
When the decree or order
becomes enforceable or
where the decree or any
subsequent order directs
any payment of money or
the delivery of any
property to be made at a
certain date or at recurring
periods, when default in
making the payment or
delivery in respect of
which execution is sought,
takes place;
Provided that an
application for the
enforcement or execution
of a decree granting a
perpetual injunction shall
not be subject to any
period of limitation.
PART II – OTHER APPLICATIONS
137
Three years
When the right to apply
accrues.