The Limitation Act, 1963.

◦          LIMITATION ACT, 1963

◦   Limitation Act is a statute of repose, peace and justice as it demands extinguishes the demands of the state and settles title.

◦  The object is to obtain peace and security so as to make a presumption that a right would cease to exist, when not exercised for a long time.

◦  The law seeks to aim that the rights of the parties should not be in a state of constant doubt, dispute or any uncertainty. It is founded on public policy to secure peace and suppressing fraud or perjury, and preventing oppression.

◦          Right not exercised for a long time is non-existent

◦          Interest of the state requires that there should be an end to litigation [ interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium]

◦          Law assist the vigilant and not the one who sleeps over his rights[vigilantibus non dorminetibus jura subveniunt]

◦          There are three grounds to support law of limitation:

Ø  Long dormant claims have more cruelty than justice

Ø  Defendant might have lost evidence to disprove a state claim

Ø  Person with good cause of action should pursue with reasonable diligence

◦          The substantive part of the act is from Sec 1-32 and 137 Articles (the schedule) prescribe the period of limitation.

◦          1^st Division is regarding various suits and period of limitation for filing such suits , providing time from which the period starts running. 2^nd Division is applicable to appeals and 3^rd Division deals with various types of applications.

◦          Law of Limitation is procedural, it cannot provide for a longer period by revival of a dead remedy and it also cannot extinguish a vested right by providing a shorter period.

◦          The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings which have already commenced at the time when act came into force.

◦          Limitation only bars remedy, does not affect underlying right.

◦          It does not destroy the rights accrued in the favour of party.

◦          The act only applies to courts and to proceedings that can initiated in a court of law.

◦          Various tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies other than courts are not within the ambit of the act.

◦          It does not apply to proceedings of a Labour Court (Nityananda v. LIC), Arbitration Tribunal (Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewage Board v. Subhash Project and Marketing) and Election Tribunal ( K.V Rao v. B.N Reddi).

◦          Section 3 of the act states that “every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation is not setup as defence”.

◦          Plea of limitation affects jurisdiction. Any finding in favour of party raising a plea ousts the jurisdiction of court.

◦          Section 3 is mandatory and peremptory in nature and casts duty on the court that they are to dismiss the suit, application or appeal if it is beyond limitation. It is irrelevant whether such a plea has been setup in defence by opposite party.

◦          A new plea of limitation can be taken at any stage of proceedings provided it is based on admitted, undisputed and proved facts and no involvement of investigation.

◦          LIMITATION ACT, 1963

◦          The time period of limitation starts from the date when the right to sue accrues in favour of a party. It basically means, a right to seek relief and to approach a court of law.

◦          There cannot be a right to sue until the right asserted has accrued. The second column of each article fixes the period of limitation, while third column specifies time from which period of limitation starts running.

◦          Section 4 of Limitation Act, 1963 states “where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the same should be filed when the court reopens”

◦          Section 5 of the act provides for extension of time in some cases. It states, “any appeal or application maybe admitted even after limitation is over, if the appellant or applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not filing such appeal or application within the period of limitation”.

◦          In such cases, delay can be condoned by court and the matter can be heard and decided on merits.

◦          Condonation of delay in filing appeal and application allowed – sufficient cause [other than application U/O.21 of the code]– no Condonation of delay for filing suits.

◦          Sufficient cause: not defined – liberal interpretation to advance justice.

◦          Collector (Land Acquisition) v. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353

◦          Appeal by state against decision enhancing the compensation in case of acquisition of land for public purpose.

◦          Appeal allowed ,delay condoned and HC was asked to decide case on merits.

◦          General rule under Section 3 declares that every suit, appeal or application filed after limitation period shall be dismissed. The rule is absolute and unqualified.

◦          Suit instituted after prescribed period of limitation has to be dismissed as there is no condonation of delay in filing a suit.

◦          Regarding appeals and applications, the act provides extension of time and condonation in filing appeals and applications (Section 5). The appellant has to satisfy the court that he had a sufficient cause for not preferring appeal or making application, then the court can condone and hear case on merits.

◦          The court has to take two conflicting considerations:

Ø  Court would try to decide every cause on merits rather than throwing it away on technical ground of delay without entering into real issues.

Ø  Non filing of appeal or application has created a valuable right for opposite party which cannot be defeated or interfered with lightly.

◦          6. Legal disability –

◦          Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceases, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefore in the third column of the Schedule.

◦          (2) Where such person is, at the time from which the prescribed period it to be reckoned, affected by two such disabilities, or where, before his disability has ceased, he is affected by another disability, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after both disabilities have ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified.

◦          (3) Where the disability continues upto the death of that person, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified.

◦          (4) Where the legal representative referred to in sub-section (3) is, at the date of the death of the person whom he represents. affected by any such disability, the rules contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply.

◦          (5) Where a person under disability dies after the disability ceases but within the period allowed to him under this section, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been available to that person had he not died.

◦          Explanation - For the purposes of this section 'minor' includes a child in the womb.

◦          Conditions of Sec 6:

◦          i. Person entitled to sue - under disability

◦          ii. Legal disability – minority, insanity – minor includes child in womb

◦          iii. Limitation starts - when disability ceases, not from cause of action.

◦          Several disabilities – limitation starts when all disabilities have ceased - sec 6(2)

◦          Disability lasts till death – limitation for LR starts from date of death - sec 6(3), (4), (5)

◦          a. Death before disability ceases – LR can sue within limitation period starting from death

◦          sec 6(3)

◦          b. Death before disability ceases – LR also under disability at time of death – LR can sue within limitation period starting when LR’s disability ceases – sec 6(4)

◦          c. Death after disability ceases but within extended period – LR can sue within the extended period, as available to deceased – sec 6(5)

◦          Period of extension of limitation under section 6 – not exceed 3 years from cessation of disability/death, or the original limitation period, whichever is lesser – sec 8

◦          Once time starts running, subsequent disability not affect limitation – sec 9

◦          Section (12-25) of the act provide for the exclusion of time provisions in computing limitation period prescribed by law. Those provisions exclude the following periods:

-          The day on which the period of limitation is to be reckoned

-          The day on which judgement/order/sentence is pronounced

-          Time spent in obtaining copy of decree/award/sentence

-          Time spent in prosecuting an application to sue indigent person

-          Time spent in proceedings taken bona fide in court without jurisdiction

-          The time during which the stay or injunction operated

-          Time spent in giving notice or obtaining consent or sanction required by law

-          Time during which there was there was receiver or liquidator

-          Time during which defendant is out of India

-          Time during which proceedings to set aside sale pending (in a possession suit)

◦          Effect of Fraud or Mistake – section 17

◦          Limitation starts from discovery of fraud or mistake if:-

◦           suit/application is for relief due to fraud by defendant or due to mistake

◦           knowledge of plaintiff’s right / title underlying the suit/application – fraudulently concealed by defendant,

◦           document necessary to establish plaintiff’s right – fraudulently concealed by defendant

◦          Effect of acknowledgment of liability in writing by the person against whom is made- from the date of acknowledgment[R.18]

◦          Effect of payment on account of debt/ interest in legacy- from the date of payment[R.19]

◦          Easement

◦          Land affected or "burdened" by an easement is called a "servient tenament," while the land or person benefited by the easement is known as the "dominant tenement.“

◦          Two common easements created by implication are:

◦          easements of necessity and

◦          easements by Prescription.

◦          Easement by local Custom

◦          Easement by prescription – section 25, 26

◦          Right to access and use of light, air to any building becomes absolute, on certain conditions

◦          (Section 25)

◦          i. access and use enjoyed as easement

◦          ii. openly & peacefully enjoyed

◦          iii. as easement – right claimed on another’s property, not own property

◦          Iv. Right without interruption

◦          v. for 20 years (30 years for government property)

◦          When easement rights being enjoyed for 20 years disturbed –suit to enforce easement rights

◦          to be instituted within 2 years from such disturbance – if not, right is not absolute

◦          Extinguishment of right / Adverse Possession – Section 27

◦          Conditions for adverse possession:

◦          i. defendant in actual possession

◦          ii. possession continuous without interruption

◦          iii. possession publicly held adversely to rightful owner

◦          iv. plaintiff – notice/knowledge of such adverse possession

◦          v. possession for at least 12 years (30 years for government property)

◦          Anjanappa[d] v Somalingappa[p] (2006) 7 SCC 570

◦          Suit for declaration of title and possession, defendant encroached on the property three years back and build a hut and residing there.

◦          Defendant –govt. Land, residing for more than 12 years hence have no adverse possession.

◦          Trial court dismissed suit,1st appeal-set aside decree, HC-set aside apellate court’s decree.

◦          Possession which expressly/implidely is a deniel of title of the true owner.

◦          burden is on the defendant .

◦          SC allowed the appeal. No adverse possession.

◦          Karan files a suit for compensation 6 months after the expiry of limitation period.  He claims the delay was due to wrong advice and inaction by an unscrupulous advocate Aswin he had appointed and has subsequently approached a different advocate Charisma. Advise Karan whether his suit can be admitted and what procedure has to follow?

◦          Naren when he was at his deathbed, verbally gifted his house to his far relation  Venus. She has been occupying the house believing the gift to be legally valid for the past 21 years, without any interference. Later, Naren’s grandson informs Venus that the gift is not valid. Venus wants to obtain legal confirmation of her right to the house. Advise her.