LIMITATION ACT: AN OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

To sum up in one sentence, The Limitation Act of 1963, is as the name sounds, a stopwatch, which ensures timely pursuit of claims by setting specific time limits.

The foundation of the limitation law traces back to the Latin maxim "Vigilantibus Non-Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt," emphasizing that legal aid favors the vigilant rather than the negligent. It underscores the importance of vigilance in exercising rights, rendering any legal claim void if not pursued within a specified timeframe.

Now let us understand the concept and purpose of this act through an illustration. Let us consider that Mr. A gave a loan of Rs. 3,00,000 to Mr. B on September 1,?2020 at an interest rate of 2% p.a. Mr. B returned the loan as promised on May?5, 2023, but in December 2023, when he was making his year-end balance sheet, he saw the missing interest amount. For this, he can’t sue Mr. B as he exceeded the time limit prescribed in the schedule of the Limitation Act, which is three years.

Through this illustration we can clearly see that the purpose becomes evident. It encourages Mr. A to promptly address the missing interest instead of delaying recognition or action until discovering it much later.

The purpose of this act can be understood through the legal maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” which means that it is in the government's interest that there be an end to litigation.

This limitation prompts individuals to be vigilant about their legal rights and obligations, fostering a more efficient and timely resolution of disputes. This act helps in saving the precious time of the court and motivates the plaintiffs to be more aware.

THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT

This act comprises of 32 sections, a detailed schedule describing the prescribed time period and is divided into five parts, which is namely, the definitions, the applicability, the computation of limitation, acquisition of ownership by possession and miscellaneous respectively.

In this part of the article, we’ll delve into some important aspects of the act, which shall help the reader to gain a better outlook towards this act.

Bar of Limitation and its Exceptions

The section 3 of the act categorically states that any suit, appeal or application, which isn’t filed within the time period as prescribed in the schedule of the act and neither that suit, appeal or application, falls under the category of any circumstances as mentioned in the section 4 to 24, then that suit, appeal or application shall be deemed barred.?

The sections 4 to 11 discuss the circumstances are exceptions. The exemptions are as follows:

1.???? Section 4 states that if the prescribed period ends on a court holiday, the court will consider the application on the subsequent working day.

2.???? Section 5 states that if the appellant is able to satisfy the court that he or she had sufficient reasons for not appearing before the court after the period had had lapsed, then such suit can be admitted.

3.???? Section 6 states that if a cause of action arises and the person who wants to file the case is either insane or a minor then that person may file a suit after their disability is ceased or they have become an adult, even if the bar of limitation had ceased while they were minor or insane. Similarly, section 7 states that if several people are instituting a suit and one of them is either a minor, insane or idiot, then they also get a liberty as mentioned in section 6. Moreover, section 8 states, that this exception, doesn’t apply to cases wherein the suit is filed for rights of pre-emption, and after the person will get a period of three years to file to suit after the insanity has ceased or the person has attained majority.

4.???? But if the person is mentally sound when the cause of action arises and becomes insane while the period of limitation began then in such case, according to section 9, no extra time shall be granted.

5.???? Section 10 exempts certain lawsuits involving property held in trust for specific purposes from any time limitations, ensuring these claims can be pursued regardless of how much time has passed.

Computation of Period of Limitation

While computing the period of limitation one must account for following criteria, which is:

1.???? That the day of reckoning shall be excluded in computing the limitation period. This means that when the cause of action arises, let’s say it is on 12th of January, then 12th of January shall not be counted while calculating the expiry of limitation period, but it would begin from the subsequent day.

2.???? The time taken to obtain any copy of judgment, decree or award, shall be excluded while calculating the limitation period.

3.???? If a person contests before the court to be tried as an indigent person, and if that person files to appear as a pauper in good faith, then this time period won’t be counted in the overall time period.

4.???? If someone who would have had the right to sue passes away, the time limit begins when the deceased's legal representative can take legal action. Similarly, if someone against whom a lawsuit could have been filed passes away, the time limit begins when the plaintiff's legal representative can take action, except for certain specific cases.

5.???? In case of a fraud, the time period would begin when the victim learns about it, rather than when it began.

6.???? When before the expiration of the period, there is a written acknowledgment from the debtor, then the time period shall be calculated from the time when the written acknowledgment was received.

Easement

?Easement is defined in Section 2(f) of the Act; it states that it is a non-contractual right established on another individual's property, granting a specific privilege or use to a different individual or entity.

Easement encompasses various entitlements such as right of way for passage, access to sunlight or air, and similar land-use privileges granted to one party over another's property.

Section 25 of the act states the conditions under which a right is recognised as an easement. If someone openly and peacefully exercises a right, like passage, water access, or sunlight, without obstruction on private property for twenty years (or on government land for thirty years), it becomes a valid right according to the same conditions after the specified period.

And Section 26 states that if a person is practicing easement by virtue of interest in life and if such easement satisfies the above-mentioned conditions, then the prescribed period shall be reduced to three years.

Now, let us understand this concept through an illustration.

Mr. A resides in a house that is crammed up and doesn’t have enough space to get his car to the main road. So he uses his neighbour’s driveway to go to the main road.

Herein, the driveway was granted to Mr. A as an easement. And if he peacefully continues to enjoy it for a period of twenty years, then it shall become his right.

Also, had he not asked his neighbour and used the driveway at night, secretly, then it would not be considered an easement as it wasn’t done openly and would appear to be devious rather than a peaceful use.

Moreover, even if, in this period of twenty years, the neighbour objected about this to Mr. A, it would not be considered an easement, as one of the main criteria for an easement is no obstruction.

Furthermore, if Mr. A want to solidify or declare this right, he shall, after satisfying all the conditions mentioned in Section 25(1) of the act, after the completion of 20 years in the case of private property or 30 years in the case of government, approach the appropriate institute within a span of two years after the end of the said period.

LIMITATION ACT BARES THE REMEDY NOT THE RIGHT

?

The purpose of instituting the limitation act was never to snatch the rights of a person, but it was established to put a time limit on a suit, to make the petitioners more vigilant and proactive towards their right.

For instance, a person had taken a loan and didn’t return it for three years, surely, the person may not have the remedy to approach the court but it doesn’t cease him of the right, the loan won’t become void but with the absence of remedy that right becomes an imperfect right.

Well, we can get a better understanding of this concept through a well-known case law. In the case of PNB Vs Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992, SCMr. Dubey received a loan from PNB, and Surendra Prasad Sinha served as guarantor and executed a security bond that provided the bank FDR. Dubey failed to make loan payments on time. Bank waited three years to take legal action against Mr. Dubey. The time limit has passed. Even after Surendra Prasad Sinha's FD was due to mature in 4 years, the bank took the loan and interest amount out of his FDR and deposited the balance into his savings account. Sinha reported criminal misappropriation for 405 and 409 in a criminal complaint. HC refused to dismiss the complaint. SC dismissed the grievance.

According to the SC, the right to debt persists even if the ability to enforce it through legal means is prohibited. The remedy to enforce the debt is destroyed, but the debt itself remains unpaid.

The only exmeption to this concept is the section 27 of the Limitation Act which talks about adverse possession, how that one person occupies another person’s land for a long span and that person, whose land it is, sleeps over his right, will loose his remedy as well as right.

?

CONCLUSION: THE GOOD, THE HOPE FOR BETTER AND THE ROAD AHEAD

?The Limitation Act stands as an essential legislation, crucial in light of the overwhelming caseload burdening India's courts. Contemplate a scenario without the existence of this Act—imagine the strain and chaos that would ensue within the judicial system. This Act not only alleviates the burden on courts but also instills a sense of timeliness and vigilance among individuals regarding their rights.

Consider this hypothetical: a petitioner presenting a case dating back two decades. How would defendants gather evidence in such a distant past? Envisioning these potential scenarios, I firmly assert that the Limitation Act isn't just optimal; it's indispensable, safeguarding the integrity of our legal framework.

While I find the Limitation Act commendable, it's not flawless, particularly concerning Section 27, which raises reservations in my mind. There's a concern that it could potentially foster hostility. This apprehension was aptly highlighted by The Supreme Court in 2008 in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Others. The Court criticized adverse possession, emphasizing its disproportionate impact on genuine property owners while benefiting dishonest trespassers.

Acknowledging the shortcomings, the Court advocated for a fresh perspective on adverse possession and urged the government to thoroughly examine and amend the legislation accordingly.

?But all set aside, this act is an asset to the Indian Legal System, a legislation that makes the functioning of our courts efficient and effective.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Hemansh Tandon, an advocate based in Delhi, combines his expertise in law with a passion for writing. He blends his legal knowledge with captivating storytelling, creating compelling narratives that deeply connect with audiences.

?

?