An Act to consolidate and amend the law for the Limitation of Suits, and for other made after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the First Schedule. 𝗣𝗗𝗙 | On Jan 1, , Debi S. Saini and others published Book Review: B.B. Mitra on The Limitation Act by M. R. Mallick. (Eastern Law. The 'Law of Limitation' prescribes the time-limit for different suits within, which an aggrieved person can approach the court for redress or justice. The suit, if filed.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|Genre:||Academic & Education|
|ePub File Size:||29.75 MB|
|PDF File Size:||20.41 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
(1) This Act may be called the Limitation Act, (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (3) It shall come into force on such . Full text containing the act, Limitation Act, , with all the sections, schedules, short title, enactment date, and footnotes. THE LIMITATION ACT, (36 of ). [Act as on Date - Modified up to ]. [5th October ]. An Act to consolidate and amend the law for the limitation.
Background[ edit ] Before the passing of the Act, the only exceptions to the normal statute of limitations three years after the events that caused the injury, as established by the Law Reform Limitation of Actions, etc. Act were if the claim was being brought for a case of mistake or fraud, in which case the statute of limitations was twelve months from when the claimant could reasonably have been expected to discover the fraud or mistake. While it was passing through the House of Lords , Lord Reid suggested it would be simpler to amend the Limitation Act , but this was never acted on. It introduced an exception if 1 the permission of the court had been gained to bring a case and 2 the "material facts" of the case included "facts of a decisive character" which the claimant was not aware of until after the expiry of the statute of limitations. The Act also suffered from drafting problems - in Central Asbestos Lord Reid described it as having "a strong claim to the distinction of being the worst drafted Act on the statute book".
Acquisition of easements by prescription. Exclusion in favour of reversioner of servient tenement. Extinguishment of right to property. Amendment of certain Act. Provision for suits, etc. Provisions as to barred or pending suits etc. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, Clause 2. The Law Commission in its Third Report observed as follows on this point-. Some Courts take the view that it means only the periods of limitation. As the expression occurs in other. We recommend accordingly.
Bar of limitation. Sub-clause 2 c sets at rest the conflict of decisions as to when exactly time ceases to run in the case of an application by notice of motion. It is now provided that time ceases to run when notice of motion is made and not when the notice is taken by the Court-a view more favourable to the applicant.
II, S. Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal, or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the Court re - opens. Clause 4. An explanation to this effect has been added. Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, , may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or, the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Clause 5. In the case of special or local laws, it will be open to such laws to provide that section 5 will not apply. Legal disability. Clause 6. The Committee feel that it should be made clear that this clause applies also to a child in the womb, the age of majority being determinable in all cases as provided in the Indian Majority Act, The Explanation seeks to make the necessary provisions.
Where one of several person jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is under any such disability, and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against them all; but, where no such discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them until one of them becomes capable of giving such discharge without the concurrence of the others or until the disability has ceased.
Explanation I. Explanation II. Clause 7. The Explanation is intended to make the position clear. It is also made clear that in the case of the manager of a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara law, his authority to give a valid discharge can be inferred only when he is both the de jure and de facto manager.
Special exceptions. Nothing in section 6 or in section 7 applies to suits to enforce rights of pre - emption, or shall be deemed to extend, for more than three years from the cessation of the disability or the death of the person affected thereby, the period of limitation for any suit or application.
Where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it: Provided that, where letters of administration to the estate of a creditor have been granted to his debtor, the running of the period of limitation for a suit to recover the debt shall be suspended while the administration continues.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act, no suit against a person in whom property has become vested in trust for any specific purpose, or against his legal representatives or assigns not being assigns for valuable consideration , for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property, or the proceeds thereof, or for an account of such property or proceeds, shall be barred by any length of time.
Buddhist religious or charitable endowment shall be deemed to be property vested in trust for a. Clause Explanation,-- For the purposes of this section, In sub-clause 1 for the words "cause of action" the words "matter in issue" are being substituted as the former expression tends to make the relief too narrow.
In sub-clause 3 , which is new, it is provided that if a suit or application is withdrawn under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, , on grounds similar to those specified in this clause, the time spent in prosecution such proceedings shall be excluded.
Clause 14 Now S. Such cases are analogous to those which provide for statutory notices, the period of which is excluded by the existing section. Sub-section 3 is new. It is common knowledge that by the time a receiver or liquidator is appointed in insolvency or liquidation proceedings and the receiver or liquidator after getting information about the assets and liabilities of the estate sits down to the task of realising the assets of the estate, claims in favour of such estate or company get barred to the detriment of the persons entitled to the benefits of the assets.
Sub-clause 4 and 5 reproduce sections 13 and 16 of the existing Act.
Clause 15 section 16 now. In Meyappa v. Subramanya 20 CWN , the Privy Council observed that when the cause of action arises in favour of a deceased person after his death time will at once begin to run. The clause, as now proposed to be amended, will make it applicable to rights of action accruing on death or thereafter. Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which The clause also seeks to afford suitable protection to downloadrs for valuable consideration in all such cases.
Sub-clause 2 incorporates the principle contained in the proviso to section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, , which now finds a place in this Bill see Art. The benefit is, however, made available only if the application for extension is made within one year from the date of discovery of the fraud or cessation of force. II, section 2, Ext.
Otherwise, that reproduces section 19 of the existing Act. Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made: Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, , an acknowledgement of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues. In the case of a suit for compensation for an act which does not give rise to a cause of action unless some specific injury actually results therefrom, the period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the injury results.
All instruments shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be made with reference to the Gregorian calendar. Clauses 24 to Sections 26 and 27 deal with the acquisition of rights of easement by prescription on the basis that prescription is really ancillary to the law of limitation. Limitation of actions is the procedural equivalent of the prescription of rights.
The two sections also prescribe a period of limitation for the bringing of suits relating to easements acquired by prescription and also deal with the computation of the period prescribed therefor. Section 28 is a general provision and deals with the extinguishment of right to property, whether movable or immovable.
The Law Commission has proposed that sections 26 and 27 of the existing Act should be repealed and the Indian Easements Act, , should be extended to the territories to which sections 26 and 27 now apply in order to secure uniformity in the law. The Indian Easements Act, , which extends only to a few States, deal exhaustively with the law relating to easements and licences, their acquisition, transfer etc. On the other hand, it would have been possible for Parliament to extend sections 26 and 27 of the existing Act to those parts of India to which the Indian Easements Act, , now applies and thereby secure some measure of uniformity.
Sections 26 and 27 to a large extent correspond to sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Easements Act, As sections 15 and 16 are more exhaustive, the better course would be to retain sections 26 and 27 in this Bill for the time being and this is what clauses 24 and 25 seek to do. As and when the Indian Easements Act, , is made applicable to any State by State legislation, clauses 24 and 25 would automatically become inapplicable by reason of the provisions contained in clause 28 4.
In its application to the State of Orissa, S. Please Refer section In its application to the State of Orissa, section 26 is repealed — Orissa Act 24 of , section 3 31 - 8 - At the determination of the period hereby limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, -. Limitation Act, , as has already expired before the commencement of this Act is shorter than the.
Under Article F of the Constitution.
In its application to the State of Sikkim, for section 30, substitute as under: Clauses 29 and In cases where the period is increased but the cause of action has already become barred, clause 30 makes it clear that the rights will not be revived thereby. Clause 30 Original clause Hence the period of two years provided in part a of the clause has been extended to five years and the period of thirty days has been extended to ninety days in part b of the clause.
The proviso to part a has been omitted as unnecessary. Nothing in this Act shall, Under article F of the Constitution. In its application to the State of Sikkim, in S. II, section 3 ii , Ext. Periods of Limitation. The existence of so many articles in the Limitation Act, , made the subject very complex and has also been responsible for conflict of judicial decisions.
In the Limitation Act, , articles were grouped according to the periods prescribed. This was neither rational nor convenient. Most of the articles relating to suits fell under distinct subjects. The Law Commission of India in their Third Report on the Limitation Act, , therefore, took the view that if the articles should be grouped subjectwise and a uniform period be fixed for suits of the same nature a considerable measure of simplicity could be achieved.
Similarly, as regards the articles relating to appeals and applications the Commission considered that uniform periods should be prescribed as far as possible as it would conduce to simplicity.
In the process of evolving a uniform period of limitation it was held necessary to increase the existing periods in some cases. The Commission also proposed that all articles in which the date in column three coincides with the accrual of the cause of action should be grouped together and the date of the accrual of the cause of action be specified as the starting point of limitation and that where the two dates do not coincide, the existing article should be retained with such changes as may be necessary.
Law Commission of India. Third Report, pp. PART I. The close of the year in which. Against a factor for an account. Three years. When the account, is during the.
When the account is, during the. When the neglect or misconduct. The date of the dissolution. All these articles are now grouped together, the period being fixed at 3 years in all these cases. Wherever possible, articles which can be dealt with together have been combined. Similarly article which may conveniently be omitted in favour of residuary entry have been omitted. Example, articles 80, 83, 84, and have all been omitted in favour of the new residuary entry The distinction between contracts in writing registered and other contracts is being done away with as not being necessary and the uniformity in the period prescribed for all suits founded on contracts is being done away with as not being necessary and the uniformity in the period prescribed for all suits founded on contracts including those falling under the residuary entry 13 will remove the ever arising conflict under the present law as to which article applies — whether the residuary article providing for a longer period of limitation or any other specific article providing for a shorter period.
For a seaman's wages. The end of the voyage during. When the wages accrue due. When the food or drink is. For the price of lodging. When the price becomes payable. When the loss or injury occurs. When the goods ought to be. When the hire becomes payable. The date of the delivery of the.
When the period of credit. When the period of the proposed. The date of the sale. When the work is done.
When the loan is made. When the cheque is paid. When the demand is made.
When the money is paid. When the money is received. When the interest becomes due.
When the accounts are stated. When the time specified arrives. The day so specified. The date of executing the bond. On a bond subject to a condition. When the condition is broken. When the bill or note falls due.
When the bill is presented. When the bill is presented at. The date of the bill or note. The expiration of the first term. When the default is made, unless.
The date of the delivery to the. When the notice is given. The date of the refusal to accept. When the acceptor pays the. When the surety pays the. When the surety pays anything. The date of the death of the. The date of occurrence. Article Column 3 against item a has been amended accordingly. When the insurers elect to.
The date of the payment or. The date of the failure. The date of the payment in. When the right to contribution. The date of the payment. When the profits are received. For arrears of rent. When the arrears become due. The time fixed for completing. The date fixed for the. When the contract is broken or. When the issue or registration. When the alleged adoption. To obtain any other declaration. When the right to sue first accrues.
When the facts entitling the. Article 59 combines existing Arts. To set aside a transfer of. When the ward attains majority. When the ward dies. Article 59 combines existing articles 19 and , and 60 reproduces existing article 44 but is amplified to cover cases where the ward dies before attaining majority or within three years after attaining majority S. By a mortgagor.
A period varying from 1 to 3 years has been prescribed for suits relating to torts and miscellaneous matters and for suits for which no period of limitation has been provided elsewhere in the Schedule to the Act. It is to be taken as the minimum period of seven days of the Act for the appeal against the death sentence passed by the High Court or the Court of Session in the exercise of the original jurisdiction which has been raised to 30 days from the date of sentence given.
One of the main salient feature of the Limitation Act, is that it has to avoid the illustration on the suggestion given by the Third Report of the Law Commission on the Limitation Act of as the illustration which are given are most of the time unnecessary and are often misleading.
The Limitation Act, has a very wide range considerably to include almost all the Court proceedings. The change in the language of Section 2 and Section 5 of the Limitation act, includes all the petition and also application under special laws.
Plaintiff or defendant as the case may be derives his title but also a person whose estate is represented by an executor, administrator or other representatives. According to Sections 86 and Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, it requires the consent of the Central Government before suing foreign rulers, ambassadors and envoys.
The Limitation Act, provides that when the time obtained for obtaining such consent shall be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing such suits. The Limitation Act, with its new law signifies that it does not make any racial or class distinction since both Hindu and Muslim Law are now available under the law of limitation as per the existing statute book.
In the matter of Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D. Naik, AIR SC the Supreme Court has observed that the law of limitation under the Limitation Act, does make any racial or class distinction while making or indulging any law to any particular person.
That long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them. That a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the State claim. That person with good causes of actions should pursue them with. There are two Major Broad Considerations on which the Doctrine of Limitation and Prescription are based on That, the right which are not exercised for a long time are said to be as non-existence.
That, the rights which are related to property and rights which are in general should not be in a state of constant uncertainty, doubt and suspense. This statutory restriction after a certain period of time gives a status to enforce an existing right. Simply, it neither create any right in favour of any person nor does it define or create any cause of action against the particular person but it prescribes about the remedy. These remedy can be exercised only up to a certain period of time and not subsequently.
The main object of the statute of the Limitation Act, is more over a preventive kind and not to interpose a statutory bar after a certain period of time and it gives a quietus to all the suit matters to enforce an existing right.
The major purpose of the statutory of the Limitation Act, is not to destroy or infringe the rights of an aggrieved person but to serve public in a better way and to save time.
This statute is basically founded on the public policy for fixing a life span for the legal action which are taken place and to seek remedy in time with the purpose of general welfare.
The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage which is caused by reason of legal injury. Redress of the Legal Injury from Legal Action when Suffered The provisions of Limitation Act which are provided in the statute are the statute of repose, to suppress frauds and to supply deficiency of proofs which are arising from the ambiguity, obscurity or the antiquity. The presumptions proceed upon the claims which are extinguished or are ought to be extinguished whenever they are not litigated with the prescribed period of time.
The right has been measured as an equivalent with regards to making of the quick diligence to the person. It has discouraged the litigation by downloading some common receptacle which has accumulated from the past times which are now unexplainable and have become inexplicable due to lapse of time.
The Limitation Act is a law of repose, peace and justice which has barred the remedy after the failure of particular period of time. This is all because for the public policy and expediency without extinguishing any right in certain cases.
It has been the topic of discussion in the Supreme Court and different High Court about the object of the Law of Limitation. In the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Rikhab Chand , it has been observed by the Rajasthan High Court that the rules of limitation are mainly intended to induce the claimant in claiming the relief and also in avoiding the unexplainable delay and latches in a suit. Whereas, in the matter of M. Raghavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer , it has been observed by the Kerala High Court that the Law of Limitation is based upon public policy mainly aiming at justice, repose and peace.
In the matter of Rajender Singh v. While this is so, there are two aspects of the Statutes of Limitation — the one concerns with the extinguishment of the right if a claim or action is not commenced within a particular time and the other merely bars the claim without affecting the right which either remains merely as a moral obligation or can be availed of to furnish the consideration for a fresh enforceable obligation.
Where a statute prescribing the limitation extinguishes the right if affects substantive right while that which purely pertains to the commencement of action without touching the right is said to be procedural.
Krishnamurthy , it was held by the Supreme Court that the Limitation Act is based upon public policy which is used for fixing a life span of a legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare.
It has been pointed out that the Law of Limitation are not only meant to destroy the rights of the parties but are meant to look to the parties who do not resort the tactics but in general to seek remedy.