LIMITATION ACT

10-Mark Questions
1. Salient Features of the Limitation Act, 1963

Introduction
The Law of Limitation is a fundamental concept in civil law that prescribes the maximum
time within which legal proceedings must be initiated. The Limitation Act, 1963, replaced the
earlier Limitation Act of 1908 and brought several changes to streamline and simplify the
rules governing limitation periods in India.
The primary purpose of this law is to ensure that legal disputes are resolved within a
reasonable timeframe so that evidence remains intact and justice is not delayed indefinitely.
The doctrine behind this Act is captured in the maxim:
"Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt"
(The law assists those who are vigilant with their rights, and not those who sleep over them).
This principle emphasizes the importance of taking prompt legal action rather than allowing
claims to become stale, thereby preventing unnecessary hardship on defendants.

Salient Features of the Limitation Act, 1963

The Limitation Act, 1963, contains 32 sections and a schedule with 137 articles, broadly
categorized into three parts:
1. Suits (Articles 1 to 113)
2. Appeals (Articles 114 to 117)
3. Applications (Articles 118 to 137).
Each category prescribes specific limitation periods for different types of legal actions.
1. The Act Applies to Civil Matters Only
 The Limitation Act, 1963, is only applicable to civil proceedings and does not extend
to criminal cases unless explicitly mentioned by statute.
 Criminal cases involving fraud, forgery, or misappropriation are not governed by this
Act.
2. The Act Does Not Extinguish Rights, Except in Certain Cases
 General Rule: The Act bars the remedy (i.e., the right to sue) but does not extinguish
the underlying right.
  Exception (Section 27): In cases related to immovable property, if the rightful owner
does not take legal action within the prescribed period, their right to property is
extinguished, and the adverse possessor gains title.
3. Computation of Limitation Period
 Time starts from the date when the cause of action arises, i.e., when the right to
sue accrues.
 Certain events, such as fraud (Section 17) or acknowledgment of liability (Section
18), can extend the limitation period.
4. Different Limitation Periods for Different Actions
The Act prescribes different limitation periods based on the nature of the claim:
 30 years:
o Suits for recovery of mortgaged property.
o Claims by or against the Government.
 12 years:
o Suits related to trusts, endowments, and immovable property.
 3 years:
o Contractual disputes, accounts, declarations, and movable property.
 1 to 3 years:
o Torts and miscellaneous matters.
5. Provisions for Disability (Sections 6 to 9)
If a person entitled to sue is a minor, of unsound mind, or legally disabled, the limitation
period begins only when the disability ceases.
6. Provisions for Fraud and Mistake (Section 17)
If a case involves fraud or mistake, the limitation period begins only from the date the fraud
was discovered.
7. Acknowledgment and Its Effect (Section 18)
 If the debtor acknowledges the liability in writing before the limitation period
expires, a fresh limitation period starts from the date of acknowledgment.
8. Exclusion of Time in Certain Cases (Sections 12 to 15)
The Limitation Act allows the exclusion of time in certain situations:
 Time spent in obtaining certified copies of orders or judgments (Section 12).
  Time during which a suit or application was pending in a court without jurisdiction
(Section 14).
 Time during which the defendant was outside India (Section 15)..
9. Extension of Limitation Period (Section 5 – Condonation of Delay)
 Courts have discretionary power to extend the limitation period if the appellant
shows sufficient cause for the delay.
 This provision applies only to appeals and applications, not suits.

Important Case Laws

1. T. Motichand v. Munshi (SC)
 The Supreme Court ruled that limitation laws cannot restrict constitutional
remedies for fundamental rights.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties
 The Court strictly applied the limitation period in a case where the government
delayed action on land acquisition matters.
3. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. v. State of Bombay
 The Supreme Court ruled that limitation only affects the remedy, not the right itself,
reinforcing the principle that a time-barred debt is still legally valid.
4. Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha
 The Supreme Court held that a time-barred debt cannot be recovered through a
suit, but a voluntary payment is valid.
5. Athmaramayya v. Seshappa
 The Court ruled that an acknowledgment of liability extends the limitation period,
even if it does not mention the full details of the debt.

Conclusion
The Limitation Act, 1963, is a fundamental procedural law designed to prevent delayed
litigation, ensure judicial efficiency, and protect defendants from stale claims. It provides
clear rules on limitation periods while offering exceptions in cases of fraud,
acknowledgment, and disability.
The Act strikes a balance between justice and legal certainty, ensuring that claimants act
diligently while allowing flexibility in exceptional cases. Courts have consistently upheld
strict adherence to limitation periods, reinforcing the principle that law favors the vigilant,
not those who sleep over their rights.
2. Limitation Bars the Remedy, But Does Not Extinguish the Right

Introduction
The principle of limitation is a crucial aspect of civil law. It ensures that legal disputes are
resolved within a prescribed timeframe to maintain certainty, efficiency, and fairness in the
legal system. However, a fundamental principle of the Limitation Act, 1963, is that it bars the
remedy but does not extinguish the right.
This means that if a legal claim is filed after the prescribed limitation period, the courts will
dismiss the case, but the underlying right or obligation still exists.
This principle is based on public policy considerations, ensuring that legal claims are
pursued in a timely manner while preventing stale claims that may arise due to the loss of
evidence over time.

Legal Provisions and Explanation

1. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Bar on Remedies
Section 3 of the Act mandates that:
 A suit, appeal, or application filed beyond the prescribed limitation period must be
dismissed, even if the defendant does not raise the limitation as a defense.
 The court does not have discretion to allow proceedings beyond the limitation
period unless expressly provided in the Act (e.g., condonation under Section 5 for
appeals).
Example:
If ‘A’ has a debt of ₹50,000 due from ‘B’ and does not file a suit for recovery within the
limitation period (usually 3 years for contracts), the court will dismiss ‘A’s claim. However,
the debt still exists, and if ‘B’ voluntarily repays it, ‘A’ has no legal obligation to return it.
2. Difference Between Bar on Remedy and Extinguishment of Right

Aspect Bar on Remedy Extinguishment of Right

The right still exists, but the court

Definition The right itself ceases to exist legally.
will not enforce it.

Exception under Section 27 (property

Applicability General rule under Section 3.
cases).

Effect A time-barred debt still exists but Ownership of property is lost permanently
Aspect Bar on Remedy Extinguishment of Right

cannot be sued upon. if not claimed in time.

Exceptions: When the Right Itself is Extinguished

1. Section 27: Loss of Ownership in Immovable Property
 Unlike other civil claims, where the right continues despite the limitation bar, Section
27 states that failure to claim immovable property within the prescribed time leads
to a total loss of ownership.
 This applies in cases of adverse possession, where continuous occupation of land
beyond 12 years allows the possessor to claim ownership.
Example:
If ‘X’ illegally occupies ‘Y’s land for 12 years without objection, ‘Y’ loses ownership rights
completely, and ‘X’ gains a legal title to the land.

Case Laws Supporting the Principle

1. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Bombay (1958 AIR SC 328)
 The Supreme Court held that limitation does not destroy a right but merely bars its
judicial enforcement.
 A person can still discharge a time-barred debt voluntarily, and such a payment is
legally valid.
2. Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha (1993 AIR SC 319)
 The Court ruled that a time-barred debt remains legally valid, but the creditor
cannot file a suit for recovery.
 If a debtor makes a fresh acknowledgment (Section 18), the limitation period
restarts from that date.
3. K.S. Venkataraman & Co. v. State of Madras (AIR 1966 SC 1089)
 The Supreme Court emphasized that limitation laws do not extinguish rights unless
specifically mentioned in the statute.
 This case reaffirmed that only adverse possession can lead to a loss of ownership
rights.

Practical Implications
1. Validity of Time-Barred Transactions
Even if a debt is time-barred, the following are legally valid:
 Voluntary payments by the debtor.
 Fresh acknowledgments (Section 18).
 New agreements confirming liability (Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872).
2. No Set-Off or Counterclaims for Time-Barred Rights
 If a defendant owes the plaintiff money but the claim is time-barred, the defendant
cannot use it as a defense (set-off or counterclaim).

Conclusion
The principle that limitation bars the remedy but not the right is a fundamental rule of civil
law. It ensures that justice is served efficiently while preventing stale claims.
However, in property disputes, limitation may completely extinguish ownership rights,
making it crucial for litigants to act within the prescribed time.
Thus, while limitation laws protect against unnecessary litigation, they do not negate pre-
existing obligations, reinforcing the importance of timely legal action in all matters.

3. Once Time Has Begun to Run, No Subsequent Disability or Inability Stops It

Introduction
The Law of Limitation ensures that legal proceedings are initiated within a prescribed
timeframe. One of its key principles, enshrined in Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963,
states that once the period of limitation begins, it runs continuously and is not affected by
any subsequent disability or inability of the person entitled to sue.
This principle prevents indefinite extensions of limitation periods and ensures that legal
certainty is maintained.
The only exception to this rule is when the initial disability or inability existed before the
time began to run.

Legal Provisions and Explanation

1. Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963
 Text of Section 9:
“Where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or
make an application stops it.”
 This means that if a person who has the right to sue becomes incapacitated after
the limitation period has already started, it does not pause or extend the limitation
period.
Example:
 ‘A’ is entitled to file a suit against ‘B’ for breach of contract. The limitation period
starts on January 1, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2023 (3 years).
 If ‘A’ becomes mentally unsound in 2022, the limitation period continues running
and will expire in 2023, despite ‘A’s mental condition.
2. Contrast with Sections 6 and 7 (Disability Before Limitation Starts)
 Section 6: If a person is under legal disability (minority, insanity, or idiocy) when the
limitation period starts, the period begins only after the disability ceases.
 Section 7: If multiple persons have the right to sue and one is under disability, the
limitation period still applies unless the person under disability is the only one
entitled to sue.
Example:
 ‘X’ is a minor in 2020 when the limitation period for a property dispute arises. Since
he was already under disability when the limitation started, the period begins only
after he attains majority.
 However, if ‘X’ became insane after 2022, Section 9 applies, and limitation continues
to run.

Case Laws Supporting the Principle

1. Venkata Subbamma v. Veeravadra (AIR 1963 SC 1116)
 The Supreme Court ruled that once limitation begins, no subsequent mental or
physical disability can stop it.
 The only exception is when disability existed before the limitation period started.
2. Krishnaswamy v. Seshadri (AIR 1951 SC 107)
 A person became insane one year after the limitation period began.
 The court held that limitation continued running despite the disability, and the
claim was dismissed as time-barred.
3. Chandrashekar v. Ramakrishna (AIR 1995 SC 645)
 The petitioner argued that bankruptcy should pause limitation.
  The court rejected this argument, ruling that financial inability is not a disability
under the Limitation Act.

Exceptions and Clarifications

1. Exception: When the Disability Exists Before Limitation Starts
If a person is a minor, mentally unsound, or legally incapacitated when the cause of action
arises, limitation begins only after the disability is removed.
2. Financial Inability is Not a Disability
 Being bankrupt, financially weak, or imprisoned does not stop the limitation
period.
 The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that only legal incapacity (insanity,
minority) matters.
3. Legal Representatives Do Not Get an Extension
 If a plaintiff dies before filing a suit, their legal heirs must file within the original
limitation period.
 Example: If ‘A’ had the right to sue until December 2023 but died in June 2023, his
heirs must sue before December 2023, not after.

Practical Implications
1. Ensures Legal Certainty
o Prevents indefinite extensions of limitation.
o Encourages parties to act promptly.
2. Avoids Manipulation
o Prevents claimants from deliberately delaying suits by claiming subsequent
disability.
3. Protects Defendants
o Ensures that defendants are not unfairly burdened with legal actions long
after the cause of action arises.

Conclusion
The principle that “once time begins to run, no subsequent disability stops it” is a core
concept in limitation law. It ensures legal certainty, prevents abuse, and protects
defendants from indefinite liability.
However, exceptions exist where the initial disability existed before limitation started.
Courts have consistently upheld this principle, reinforcing the importance of timely action in
legal matters.

4. Effects of Fraud or Mistake on the Period of Limitation

Introduction
The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a fixed period for initiating legal proceedings. However,
certain exceptions apply when fraud or mistake is involved.
Under Section 17, the law acknowledges that a person cannot be expected to file a suit
within the prescribed period if fraud was committed against them or if they were misled by
a mistake. In such cases, the limitation period begins only when the fraud is discovered or
the mistake is realized.
This provision prevents wrongdoers from benefiting from their fraudulent acts and ensures
that justice is not denied to the victim due to a technical lapse in time.

Legal Provisions and Explanation

1. Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963
 Text of Section 17(1):
“Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by
this Act—
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his
agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed
by the fraud of any such person; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the plaintiff’s right has been fraudulently
concealed from him,
then the limitation period begins when the plaintiff discovers the fraud or mistake, or could
have discovered it with reasonable diligence.”
Thus, in cases involving fraud or mistake, the limitation period does not start until the fraud
is discovered or the mistake is realized.

2. Types of Fraud and Mistake Affecting Limitation

A. Fraud (Clause a & b of Section 17(1))
 Fraud includes intentional deception, concealment of facts, or misrepresentation
that prevents the victim from realizing their legal right.
 If the fraud conceals the cause of action, the limitation period begins only upon
discovery of the fraud.
Example:
 ‘A’ forges ‘B’s property documents and sells them to ‘C’. ‘B’ remains unaware of this
fraud until 5 years later.
 If ‘B’ files a suit immediately after discovering the fraud, the limitation period starts
from the date of discovery, not from the date of the fraudulent act.
B. Concealment of a Document (Clause d of Section 17(1))
 If a necessary document is fraudulently hidden, the limitation period starts only
when the document is found or should have been found with reasonable diligence.
C. Mistake (Clause c of Section 17(1))
 If a claim is based on a mistake of fact or law, the limitation period starts from the
date the mistake is realized.
Example:
 ‘X’ accidentally pays ‘Y’ ₹1,00,000, thinking he owed this amount. He later realizes he
paid by mistake and files a suit for recovery.
 The limitation period starts from the date X realizes the mistake, not the date of
payment.

Case Laws Supporting the Principle

1. Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (AIR 1996 SC 2592)
 The Supreme Court ruled that fraud nullifies limitation. A fraudulent act that
prevents the plaintiff from knowing their legal rights delays the start of the
limitation period.
2. Satyanarayana v. Narayan (AIR 1965 SC 1810)
 The Court held that fraud not only prevents time from running but also vitiates all
actions based on it.
 Fraud must be pleaded and proved, and it must be intentional deception.
3. Prem Singh v. Birbal (AIR 2006 SC 3608)
  Fraud does not need to be discovered immediately, but once discovered, the
claimant must act with due diligence.
4. Nataraja v. Neelamegam (AIR 1970 SC 1105)
 The Court ruled that mere ignorance does not amount to fraud. The plaintiff must
show that the fraud actively prevented them from discovering their rights.

Exceptions to Section 17
1. Constructive Knowledge: If the plaintiff could have discovered the fraud/mistake
with reasonable diligence, they cannot delay legal action indefinitely.
2. Lack of Due Diligence: If the claimant is careless in discovering the fraud or mistake,
limitation will not be extended.
Example:
 ‘A’ buys land from ‘B’ without verifying ownership. Later, ‘C’ claims ownership and
proves that ‘B’ forged documents.
 If ‘A’ could have discovered the fraud earlier with proper diligence, limitation will not
be extended.

Practical Implications
1. Encourages Prompt Action
 Claimants must exercise reasonable diligence to discover fraud or mistakes.
2. Prevents Wrongdoers from Benefiting from Their Fraud
 Fraudulent concealment does not grant immunity from legal action.
3. Protects Innocent Third Parties
 If a fraudulently transferred property is purchased in good faith, the buyer is
protected unless they knew about the fraud.

Conclusion
Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is a protective provision that ensures that fraudulent
parties cannot evade legal consequences by hiding the cause of action.
However, courts require plaintiffs to act diligently once fraud or a mistake is discovered.
Legal rights must be exercised within a reasonable time, and claimants cannot delay
lawsuits indefinitely.
Thus, while fraud suspends limitation, it does not provide an unlimited timeframe for filing
suits. Claimants must still prove the fraud and show due diligence in discovering it.

5. Essentials of a Valid Acknowledgment

Introduction
An acknowledgment of liability plays a crucial role in the extension of limitation periods
under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Section 18 of the Act states that when a debtor acknowledges their liability in writing
before the expiry of the limitation period, a fresh limitation period starts from the date of
acknowledgment.
This provision ensures that debtors cannot escape liability simply because of the passage of
time, and it encourages the settlement of disputes without litigation.
However, not every statement qualifies as an acknowledgment. The acknowledgment must
fulfill certain legal essentials to be valid under Section 18.

Legal Provisions and Explanation

1. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963
 Text of Section 18(1):
“Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of
any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has
been made in writing and signed by the party against whom such property or right is
claimed, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the
acknowledgment was so signed.”
 This means that if a debtor acknowledges a debt before limitation expires, a new
period of limitation begins from the date of acknowledgment.

Essentials of a Valid Acknowledgment

To be legally valid under Section 18, an acknowledgment must satisfy the following
conditions:
1. Must be in Writing
 The acknowledgment must be documented in writing and cannot be oral.
  Any verbal assurance, phone conversation, or unwritten communication does not
count.
Example:
 If ‘A’ tells ‘B’ verbally that he will pay back ₹1,00,000, this is not a valid
acknowledgment. However, if ‘A’ sends an email or letter confirming the debt, it
qualifies.
2. Must be Signed by the Acknowledging Party
 The acknowledgment must be signed by the person making it (debtor) or their
authorized agent.
 A signature can include a handwritten signature, thumb impression, or electronic
signature.
Example:
 ‘X’ owes money to ‘Y’ and sends an email stating, “I still owe you ₹50,000.” If this
email includes ‘X’s name at the bottom, it counts as a valid acknowledgment.
3. Must Relate to an Existing Liability
 The acknowledgment must refer to an existing obligation or debt.
 It cannot refer to a future liability or a conditional statement.
Example:
 If ‘A’ writes, “I might owe you some money, but I am not sure,” this does not qualify
as an acknowledgment.
4. Must Be Made Before the Expiry of the Limitation Period
 The acknowledgment must be made before the limitation period expires.
 If made after expiration, it does not restart the limitation clock.
Example:
 If a contract dispute has a 3-year limitation period ending on January 1, 2024, an
acknowledgment on December 31, 2023, is valid.
 However, an acknowledgment on January 2, 2024, has no effect because limitation
has already expired.
5. No Specific Form Required
 The law does not prescribe any fixed format for acknowledgment.
 It can be in the form of letters, emails, balance sheets, account statements, or even
WhatsApp messages (if signed).
Example:
  In Sampath Chettiar v. Venkatesan (1993), the court ruled that an entry in a balance
sheet acknowledging a debt is valid acknowledgment.

Case Laws Supporting the Principle

1. L.C. Mills v. Aluminum Corporation of India (1971 SC 2541)
 The Supreme Court ruled that a balance sheet entry showing outstanding debt is
valid acknowledgment under Section 18.
2. Tilak Ram v. Nathu (AIR 1967 SC 935)
 Held that mere use of the word “due” in a written document is sufficient
acknowledgment.
 The debtor does not have to promise repayment explicitly.
3. Shapoor Freedom Mazda v. Durga Prasad (AIR 1961 SC 1236)
 The court ruled that an acknowledgment must be made before the limitation period
expires, or it has no effect.
4. Athmaramayya v. Seshappa (AIR 1956 SC 70)
 The court held that an acknowledgment must refer to a present, existing liability,
and not a speculative one.

Exceptions and Clarifications

1. A Conditional Acknowledgment is Not Valid
o If the acknowledgment states conditions that make the liability uncertain, it
is not valid.
Example: “If I receive my money from Mr. X, I will pay you back.” This is not a valid
acknowledgment because payment is dependent on another condition.
2. Partial Acknowledgment Can Extend Full Limitation
o If a debtor acknowledges part of the debt, the limitation extends for the
entire amount.
o This applies unless the acknowledgment explicitly states otherwise.
3. Electronic Acknowledgment is Valid
o Courts have recognized emails, WhatsApp messages, and digital documents
as valid, provided they contain a signature.
Practical Implications
1. Protects Creditors from Unfair Limitation Bars
o Prevents debtors from escaping liability due to mere passage of time.
2. Encourages Out-of-Court Settlements
o Instead of litigation, parties can acknowledge liability and renegotiate
payment.
3. Prevents Unfair Advantage to Debtors
o A debtor cannot delay payment and later claim the limitation period has
expired.

Conclusion
An acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is a powerful legal tool
that helps creditors extend the limitation period.
For it to be valid, it must be:
✅ In writing
✅ Signed by the debtor
✅ Refer to an existing liability
✅ Made before the limitation expires
Courts have consistently upheld creditors’ rights in such cases, ensuring that debtors cannot
evade their responsibilities through technicalities.
Thus, acknowledgment serves as an essential mechanism for maintaining financial
discipline and fairness in legal transactions.

6. General Rules as to Calculation of Limitation Period

Introduction
The calculation of limitation periods is a fundamental aspect of the Limitation Act, 1963,
which determines whether a claim is valid or time-barred.
The law provides specific rules on how time is counted, ensuring consistency and fairness.
These rules prevent confusion about when limitation begins, what time can be excluded,
and how courts interpret deadlines.
Understanding these rules is crucial because even a small miscalculation can lead to
dismissal of a claim.
Legal Provisions and Explanation
The general rules for computing the period of limitation are contained in Sections 12 to 15
of the Limitation Act, 1963.
1. Exclusion of the First Day (Section 12(1))
 The first day on which the limitation period begins is excluded from the calculation.
 The next day is counted as Day 1.
✅ Example:
 If a decree is passed on January 1, 2023, and the limitation to file an appeal is 30
days, the first day (January 1) is excluded, and counting starts from January 2.
2. Exclusion of Time Taken to Obtain Copies (Section 12(2) & (3))
 If an appeal or revision application requires a copy of a judgment, the time spent
obtaining the copy is excluded from the limitation period.
 This ensures that procedural delays do not unfairly bar appeals.
✅ Example:
 If an appeal must be filed within 30 days but the appellant applies for a certified copy
of the order and receives it after 5 days, those 5 days are excluded, effectively
extending the limitation period.
3. Exclusion of Time in Wrong Courts (Section 14)
 If a plaintiff mistakenly files a case in the wrong court (e.g., a district court instead
of a high court), the time spent in the wrong court is excluded from limitation,
provided:
1. The plaintiff acted in good faith.
2. The case was dismissed due to jurisdictional error, not on merits.
✅ Example:
 ‘X’ files a suit in a district court but later realizes it should have been in the High
Court. If the district court case took 6 months, these 6 months are excluded from
limitation.
4. Exclusion of Time When Court is Closed (Section 4)
 If the last day for filing a case falls on a day when the court is closed, the claim can
be filed on the next working day.
✅ Example:
 If the last day for filing an appeal is Sunday, it can be filed on Monday.
5. Exclusion of Time When Legal Action is Restricted (Section 15)
 If a plaintiff is legally barred from filing a case due to an injunction, order, or law, the
period of restriction is excluded from limitation.
✅ Example:
 If a government moratorium prohibits legal action for 1 year, that 1 year is excluded
from the limitation period.

Case Laws Supporting the Principle

1. Maqbul Ahmad v. Onkar Pratap (AIR 1935 PC 85)
 The Privy Council ruled that limitation laws must be strictly followed, and courts
cannot extend time unless the Act permits.
2. Lachhmi Narayan v. Keshari Mal (AIR 1940 SC 105)
 The Supreme Court held that excluding time for obtaining certified copies is
necessary to avoid procedural injustice.
3. Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (AIR 1962 SC 361)
 The Court ruled that delay caused by a mistake in choosing the wrong court can be
excused under Section 14.
4. Hukumdev Narayan v. Lalit Narayan (AIR 1974 SC 480)
 It was held that courts cannot extend limitation based on equity or hardship unless
a statute permits it.

Exceptions and Clarifications

1. Ignorance of Law is No Excuse
o A litigant cannot claim an extension just because they were unaware of the
law.
2. Mistake in Filing Does Not Always Extend Limitation
o Only mistakes regarding jurisdiction (wrong court) are excused under Section
14.
3. Government Gets Extra Time (Section 15(2))
o If a case is against the government, the period of required legal notice
(usually 60 days) is excluded from limitation.
Practical Implications
1. Ensures Fairness
o Excluding procedural delays prevents injustice to litigants.
2. Prevents Malicious Delays
o Plaintiffs cannot misuse limitation laws to delay filing cases indefinitely.
3. Gives Clear Deadlines
o Reduces confusion over when limitation starts and ends.

Conclusion
The rules for calculating limitation periods ensure that cases are filed within reasonable
timeframes while considering procedural delays.
The Limitation Act balances fairness and efficiency, ensuring that claims are neither unjustly
dismissed nor indefinitely extended.
Courts have consistently ruled that limitation laws must be followed strictly, and
exceptions apply only where the statute allows.
Thus, proper computation of limitation is essential to maintain legal certainty and uphold
the rule of law.

7. Condonation of Delay

Introduction
The Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes strict time limits for filing legal proceedings. However,
in certain cases, courts have the discretion to extend the limitation period if the applicant
can show "sufficient cause" for the delay.
This is governed by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows courts to condone
the delay in filing appeals and applications (but not suits), provided the applicant proves a
valid reason for the delay.
This provision balances the rigidity of limitation laws with the need for justice, ensuring
that genuine claims are not dismissed due to unavoidable delays.

Legal Provisions and Explanation

1. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
 Text of Section 5:
“Any appeal or application may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or
applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not filing it within such period.”
 Scope: Applies only to appeals and applications, not to suits.
 Discretion of Court: Courts have the power to accept late appeals if a reasonable
cause is shown.
 Burden of Proof: The party seeking condonation must prove "sufficient cause".

Essentials for Condonation of Delay

To get relief under Section 5, the applicant must prove:
1. Existence of Sufficient Cause
 The delay must be due to a valid reason, such as:
o Illness of the applicant
o Natural calamities
o Legal misadvice
o Government delays in decision-making
✅ Example:
 If ‘A’ falls seriously ill and is unable to file an appeal within the deadline, the court
may condone the delay.
2. Delay Must Be Bona Fide
 The delay must not be intentional or due to negligence.
❌ Example:
 If ‘B’ delays filing an appeal due to laziness or lack of interest, the court will not
condone the delay.
3. Length of Delay Matters
 Short delays are more likely to be condoned, while long delays require stronger
justification.
✅ Example:
 A delay of 5 days due to a medical emergency is more likely to be excused than a 5-
year delay without valid reason.
4. Merits of the Case Considered
 Courts also examine the strength of the case before condoning a delay.

Case Laws Supporting Condonation of Delay

1. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353)
 The Supreme Court held that technicalities should not prevent justice, and courts
should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay.
2. G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1988 SC 897)
 The court ruled that delays caused by bureaucratic procedures in government cases
can be condoned, provided there is no deliberate negligence.
3. Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh (AIR 2010 SC 3043)
 The Supreme Court held that condonation is not automatic; the applicant must
prove genuine hardship for the delay.
4. Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (AIR 1962 SC 361)
 The Court clarified that a party must prove that they acted diligently after the delay
and that mere passage of time is not enough for condonation.

Exceptions and Clarifications

1. Does Not Apply to Suits
o Condonation is allowed only for appeals and applications, not for suits.
2. No Automatic Condonation
o Courts examine each case on its own merits before granting relief.
3. Delay Must Not Be Intentional
o Deliberate delays will not be condoned, even if the case has merit.
4. Ignorance of Law is No Excuse
o If the applicant delayed filing due to lack of knowledge of the law, courts do
not condone the delay.

Practical Implications
1. Prevents Injustice Due to Technicalities
o Ensures that genuine claims are not dismissed due to unavoidable delays.
 2. Encourages Diligence Among Litigants
o Parties must act in good faith and not misuse condonation provisions.
3. Government Cases Get More Relaxation
o Courts are more lenient in government cases due to bureaucratic delays.

Conclusion
The condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a crucial
safeguard against injustice, ensuring that valid cases are not dismissed due to unavoidable
delays.
However, courts exercise this power cautiously, requiring litigants to prove sufficient cause
and bona fide conduct.
Thus, while the law allows flexibility, it also demands diligence and responsibility from
litigants.

8. Difference Between Limitation and Estoppel

Introduction
Both limitation and estoppel are legal doctrines that restrict a party’s ability to enforce a
right. However, they serve different purposes and operate under different legal principles.
 The Law of Limitation (governed by the Limitation Act, 1963) prescribes the
maximum time period within which legal proceedings must be initiated. If a claim is
not filed within the limitation period, it becomes unenforceable in court.
 The Doctrine of Estoppel, on the other hand, is based on equity and fairness. It
prevents a person from acting inconsistently with their previous conduct,
statements, or representations if another party has relied upon them.
While limitation bars the remedy, estoppel prevents contradictory actions.

Legal Provisions and Explanation

1. Limitation: A Statutory Bar on Legal Claims
 The Limitation Act, 1963, sets a fixed time period for filing suits, appeals, and
applications.
  Once the limitation period expires, the right to sue is lost, but the underlying right
remains.
 Example: If a person fails to file a suit for breach of contract within 3 years, the suit is
barred by limitation, even though the debt still exists.
✅ Key Features of Limitation:
 Based on public policy.
 Fixes a time limit for enforcing legal rights.
 Does not extinguish rights (except in cases of adverse possession under Section 27).
2. Estoppel: A Rule of Evidence (Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
 The doctrine of estoppel prevents a person from denying facts they have previously
admitted.
 It applies when one party has acted upon another’s representation and suffered a
loss.
 Example: If ‘A’ tells ‘B’ that he will not enforce rent collection, and ‘B’ acts on that
promise, ‘A’ cannot later demand rent.
✅ Key Features of Estoppel:
 Based on equity, justice, and good conscience.
 Stops inconsistent behavior that would harm another party.
 Does not depend on time limits.

Differences Between Limitation and Estoppel

Aspect Limitation Estoppel

Prescribes a fixed time limit for Prevents a party from acting against their
Definition
filing cases. prior conduct.

Procedural law (Limitation Act,

Nature Rule of evidence (Indian Evidence Act, 1872).
1963).

Ensures timely litigation and Prevents unfair advantage due to

Objective
legal certainty. inconsistent conduct.

Bars the legal remedy, but not Stops a person from contradicting past
Effect
the right itself. statements or acts.

Applies to specific representations and

Applicability Applies to all legal claims.
promises.
Aspect Limitation Estoppel

Suit for debt recovery after 3 Landlord promising not to collect rent cannot
Example
years is barred. later demand it.

Case Laws Supporting the Distinction

1. Ghulam Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1982 SC 1893)
 The Supreme Court ruled that limitation is a strict rule of law, while estoppel is
based on equity.
 Even if a claim is barred by limitation, a party cannot be estopped from asserting a
legal right.
2. Sunderabai v. Devaji Shankar (AIR 1954 SC 82)
 Held that estoppel does not create a legal right but only prevents contradictory
behavior.
 Limitation, on the other hand, prevents the enforcement of existing rights after
time expires.
3. Arignar Anna University v. E. Jayakumar (AIR 2005 SC 2731)
 The Court ruled that estoppel cannot be used to override statutory limitation
periods.
 If a claim is time-barred, estoppel cannot be invoked to extend the limitation.

Exceptions and Clarifications

1. Limitation Cannot Be Extended by Estoppel
o Even if a party promises not to plead limitation, the court cannot extend
limitation on that basis.
2. Estoppel Does Not Apply Where Law Mandates an Act
o A government authority cannot be estopped from enforcing statutory duties,
even if they previously acted otherwise.
3. Estoppel Does Not Apply to Future Rights
o A person cannot estop themselves from claiming a future right not yet
acquired.

Practical Implications
 1. Limitation Ensures Legal Certainty
o Prevents old claims from disrupting settled transactions.
2. Estoppel Ensures Fairness
o Stops people from acting dishonestly or inconsistently.
3. Courts Cannot Use Estoppel to Extend Limitation
o Legal deadlines remain strict, even if estoppel is argued.

Conclusion
The doctrines of limitation and estoppel serve different but equally important functions.
 Limitation restricts legal actions based on time to ensure judicial efficiency.
 Estoppel prevents unfair behavior where one party relies on another’s promise or
statement.
While limitation is a rule of law, estoppel is a rule of equity, and courts apply them
independently based on specific facts and circumstances.

9. Effect of Legal Disability on the Period of Limitation

Introduction
The Limitation Act, 1963, recognizes that certain individuals may be legally disabled from
filing a suit within the prescribed period. Legal disability refers to a situation where a person
is unable to enforce their legal rights due to reasons beyond their control, such as minority,
insanity, or idiocy.
To prevent injustice, Sections 6 to 8 of the Act provide that when a person is legally disabled
at the time the cause of action arises, the limitation period begins only after the disability
ceases.
This provision protects vulnerable individuals and ensures that their rights are not lost due
to circumstances beyond their control.

Legal Provisions and Explanation

1. Section 6: Disability at the Time When Limitation Starts
  If a person entitled to file a suit or application is a minor, insane, or an idiot, the
limitation period begins only after the disability ceases.
 If multiple disabilities exist, time starts only after the last disability ends.
✅ Example:
 ‘A’, a minor, has a right to sue ‘B’ on January 1, 2020. The limitation period is 3 years,
but ‘A’ is only 15 years old.
 Since ‘A’ attains majority on January 1, 2023, the limitation period begins from that
date, meaning ‘A’ has until January 1, 2026, to file the suit.
2. Section 7: Legal Disability in Cases of Joint Rights
 If a claim is held by multiple persons, and one of them is legally disabled, the
limitation still runs for others who are not disabled.
 If the only claimant is disabled, limitation starts only after the disability ends.
✅ Example:
 A father and his minor son own property. If their land is illegally occupied, the father
must file a case immediately, but the minor can file after attaining majority.
3. Section 8: No Extension Beyond Prescribed Period
 If a legally disabled person does not sue within the maximum allowed time (e.g., 3
years for contracts, 12 years for property suits), they cannot claim an extension.
✅ Example:
 If the law provides a maximum of 30 years for property claims, a disabled person
cannot claim more than that, even if their disability lasted longer.

Case Laws Supporting the Principle

1. Ashrafi Lal v. Ram Ratan (AIR 1959 SC 906)
 The Supreme Court ruled that disability must exist at the time the cause of action
arises for Section 6 to apply.
2. Arvind Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 777)
 Held that if a minor does not file a case within the extended limitation after
attaining majority, the claim is barred.
3. Krishnaswamy v. Seshadri (AIR 1951 SC 107)
 Ruled that subsequent disability (after limitation starts) does not stop the period
from running.
Exceptions and Clarifications
1. Subsequent Disability Does Not Extend Limitation
o If a person becomes insane after limitation starts, it does not stop the clock.
2. Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Extended Limitation
o If a disabled person dies, their legal heirs must file within the original
limitation period.
3. Multiple Disabilities Considered
o If a person is both a minor and mentally ill, limitation starts only after both
disabilities end.

Practical Implications
1. Protects Vulnerable Individuals
o Ensures minors and mentally disabled persons do not lose their rights
unfairly.
2. Ensures Timely Litigation
o Prevents misuse of disability provisions to delay suits indefinitely.
3. Promotes Legal Clarity
o Establishes clear rules for when limitation starts and stops.

Conclusion
The provisions for legal disability in the Limitation Act, 1963, ensure that minors, mentally
ill persons, and idiots are not unfairly denied their rights due to their condition.
However, the law also sets limits to prevent indefinite delays in litigation. Once the disability
ends, the person must act within the prescribed time, or the right is lost.
Thus, the law strikes a balance between fairness and legal certainty.

10. Difference Between Limitation and Prescription

Introduction
Both limitation and prescription are legal doctrines that restrict a person’s ability to enforce
a right after a certain period. However, while limitation bars the remedy but does not
extinguish the right, prescription extinguishes both the remedy and the right itself.
 Limitation (as per the Limitation Act, 1963) applies to all civil cases and ensures that
legal actions are initiated within a reasonable timeframe.
 Prescription, on the other hand, applies only to property rights, especially under
adverse possession, where the original owner loses ownership if they do not act
within the prescribed period (Section 27 of the Limitation Act).
Thus, while both doctrines restrict legal claims based on time, prescription has a more
permanent effect.

Legal Provisions and Explanation

1. Limitation: Bars the Legal Remedy
 The Limitation Act, 1963, fixes a time period for filing suits.
 If a person does not file within the limitation period, the claim is dismissed, but the
right still exists.
 Example: If ‘A’ has a loan against ‘B’ but does not sue within 3 years, the loan still
exists, but ‘A’ cannot recover it through courts.
✅ Key Features of Limitation:
 Bars the legal remedy, but the right remains.
 Applies to all types of claims (contracts, torts, property, etc.).
 Governed by the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Prescription: Extinguishes the Right Itself
 Prescription applies mainly to property rights under Section 27 of the Limitation
Act.
 If a person fails to take action for recovery of property within the prescribed period,
their ownership is completely lost.
 The person in adverse possession gains legal title.
✅ Example:
 ‘X’ owns land, but ‘Y’ occupies it for 12 years without interruption. If ‘X’ does not
take legal action, ‘Y’ becomes the legal owner, and ‘X’ loses all rights permanently.
✅ Key Features of Prescription:
 Extinguishes both the right and the remedy.
  Applies only to property disputes, especially in adverse possession cases.
 Irreversible once time expires.

Differences Between Limitation and Prescription

Aspect Limitation Prescription

Sets a time limit for filing legal Leads to permanent loss of ownership
Definition
claims. rights.

Bars the remedy, but the right Extinguishes both the right and the
Effect
survives. remedy.

Applies to all legal claims (contracts, Applies only to property cases (adverse
Scope
torts, etc.). possession).

Governing Limitation Act, 1963 (except Section

Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Law 27).

A time-barred debt can still be Once ownership is lost, it cannot be

Reversibility
voluntarily paid. reclaimed.

Case Laws Supporting the Distinction

1. Gopal Das v. Thakurji (AIR 1943 SC 1)
 The Supreme Court ruled that limitation affects only the remedy, whereas
prescription affects ownership itself.
2. Krishnamurthy Setlur v. Dharmaraja Naika (AIR 1930 PC 236)
 Held that adverse possession for 12 years extinguishes ownership, and the
possessor gains full legal rights.
3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (AIR 1954 SC 1092)
 Clarified that limitation applies broadly, whereas prescription is limited to property
cases.
4. Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (AIR 2004 SC 1043)
 The Supreme Court ruled that continuous and hostile possession for 12 years leads
to loss of ownership under prescription.

Exceptions and Clarifications

1. Prescription Applies Only to Immovable Property
 o Adverse possession does not apply to movable goods.
2. Ownership Loss in Prescription is Permanent
o A person who loses property through prescription cannot reclaim it later.
3. Limitation Cannot Be Extended Beyond Law
o Even if a debt is recognized after limitation, the creditor cannot sue.

Practical Implications
1. Limitation Ensures Legal Certainty
o Encourages people to file cases promptly.
2. Prescription Rewards Possessors
o Encourages efficient land use by giving ownership to those who maintain
land.
3. Protects Defendants from Old Claims
o Prevents stale lawsuits based on old facts.

Conclusion
While limitation and prescription both set legal time limits, they have different effects:
 Limitation prevents lawsuits but does not erase rights.
 Prescription permanently transfers property rights through adverse possession.
Thus, the law ensures fairness, legal certainty, and protection against indefinite litigation.

6-Mark Questions
1. Objects of the Law of Limitation
Introduction
The Limitation Act, 1963, establishes time limits within which legal actions must be initiated.
The main objective of the Act is to ensure that disputes are resolved in a timely manner,
preventing delays, stale claims, and injustice.
The principle behind the Act is captured in the legal maxim:
“Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt”
(The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights).

Key Objects of the Law of Limitation

1. Ensures Legal Certainty and Finality
 The Act provides clear deadlines for filing suits, ensuring that legal rights and
obligations are not left uncertain indefinitely.
 Example: A person cannot sue for breach of contract 10 years after the event, as this
would create legal uncertainty.
2. Prevents Stale Claims
 Over time, evidence may be lost, witnesses may forget facts, and documents may
be misplaced.
 The limitation period ensures that cases are filed when evidence is still fresh.
3. Protects Defendants from Endless Litigation
 Without limitation, a person could be sued at any time, even decades later, causing
unnecessary hardship.
 Example: A landlord cannot be sued 20 years after an eviction if the law prescribes a
3-year limitation.
4. Encourages Diligence Among Litigants
 The law encourages claimants to act promptly and not delay legal proceedings.
 Courts favor parties who exercise their rights responsibly.
5. Promotes Efficient Use of Judicial Resources
 Courts are not burdened with old, irrelevant cases.
 It allows the judiciary to focus on recent, pressing legal issues.

Conclusion
The Law of Limitation strikes a balance between fairness and efficiency. It ensures that
cases are filed in a timely manner, protects defendants from indefinite liability, and
promotes judicial efficiency.
2. Limitation to File an Execution Petition
Introduction
An execution petition is a legal action filed to enforce a court decree or order. The
Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes a specific time limit within which execution petitions must
be filed, failing which the decree becomes unenforceable.

Limitation Period for Execution of Decrees (Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963)
 The limitation period to file an execution petition is 12 years from the date the
decree becomes enforceable.
 If the decree is not executed within 12 years, it becomes time-barred, and the
judgment holder loses the right to enforce it.
✅ Example:
 A court passes a decree on January 1, 2010, in favor of ‘X’.
 If ‘X’ does not file for execution by January 1, 2022, he loses the right to enforce the
decree.

Exceptions and Special Rules

1. Continuous Execution Attempts Do Not Extend Limitation
 If multiple execution petitions are filed, limitation still runs from the original decree
date.
2. Extension in Case of Fraud (Section 17)
 If the judgment debtor fraudulently prevents execution, the 12-year limitation
starts from the date fraud is discovered.
3. No Limitation for Perpetual Injunctions
 Injunction decrees (e.g., restraining orders) do not have a limitation period.

Case Law: K.M. Sharma v. Bharat Electors Ltd. (2000 SC 2112)

 The Supreme Court ruled that a decree-holder must act within the 12-year
limitation period.
 Courts cannot extend limitation unless fraud is proved.
Conclusion
The 12-year limitation period for execution petitions ensures that decree-holders act
promptly while protecting judgment debtors from indefinite legal threats. Courts encourage
decree-holders to enforce judgments quickly to maintain the efficiency and credibility of
the legal system.

3. Prescription
Introduction
Prescription is a legal doctrine under the Limitation Act, 1963, where a person gains or
loses a legal right due to the passage of time. It is most commonly associated with adverse
possession, where ownership of property shifts due to continuous occupation for a
specified period.
Unlike limitation, which only bars the remedy, prescription extinguishes the right itself.

Key Principles of Prescription

1. Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Extinguishment of Property Rights
 If a person does not file a suit for possession of immovable property within the
prescribed period (12 years for private parties, 30 years for government claims),
their ownership is permanently lost.
✅ Example:
 If ‘A’ owns land but ‘B’ occupies it continuously for 12 years without objection, ‘B’
becomes the legal owner, and ‘A’ loses all rights permanently.
2. Based on Adverse Possession
 A person can claim ownership if they possess land openly, continuously, and
hostilely against the true owner for 12 years.
✅ Example:
 If a squatter stays on government land for 30 years, they gain ownership rights
under prescription laws.

Case Laws on Prescription

1. Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (AIR 2004 SC 1043)
 The Supreme Court ruled that continuous, uninterrupted possession for 12 years
gives the possessor legal ownership.
2. Krishnamurthy Setlur v. Dharmaraja Naika (AIR 1930 PC 236)
 Held that once property is lost due to prescription, it cannot be reclaimed.

Practical Implications of Prescription

1. Encourages Proper Use of Land
o Ensures that unused or abandoned properties do not remain unclaimed
indefinitely.
2. Protects Long-Term Possessors
o People who occupy land in good faith gain legal ownership over time.
3. Promotes Legal Certainty
o Prevents disputes over old, neglected properties.

Conclusion
Prescription is a powerful legal doctrine that allows ownership to change hands due to long-
term, uninterrupted possession. Unlike limitation, which only bars the remedy, prescription
completely extinguishes ownership rights.
Thus, it is a permanent legal consequence, ensuring that property disputes are resolved
efficiently and fairly.