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