THE LIMITATION ACT, nineteen sixty-three

100%

READING MATERIAL ON THE LIMITATION ACT, nineteen sixty-three THE LIMITATION ACT, nineteen sixty-three

INDEX

INTRODUCTION AND SILENT FEATURE OF THE LIMITATION ACT

The word limitation in its literal term means a restriction or the rule or circumstances which are limited. The law of limitation has been prescribed as the time limit which is given for different suits and proceedings to the aggrieved person within which they can approach the court for redress or justice. The basic concept of limitation is relating to fixing or prescribing of the time period for barring legal actions. According to Section two (j) of the Limitation Act, nineteen sixty-three, 'period of limitation' means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule, and 'prescribed period' means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

According to Halsbury's Laws of England, the Main Objects of the Law of Limitations are as follows:

. Long dormant claim has more of cruelty than justice in them.

· A defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the State claim.

· A person with only good cause of actions should pursue them with.

. There are two major considerations on which the Doctrine of Limitation and Prescription are based on - firstly, the rights which are not exercised for a long time are said to be as non-existent and secondly, 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.

The main object to limit any legal action is to give effect to the maxim 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium', which means that in the interest of the State is required that there should be a limit to litigation and also to prevent any kind of disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice or by way of long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or leaches (acquiescence). The intention in accepting the concept of limitation is that "controversies are restricted to a fixed period of time, lest they should become immortal while men are mortal." This statutory restriction after a certain period of time gives a status to enforce an existing right. Simply, it neither creates 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, nineteen sixty-three is more over of a preventive kind and not to impose 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 statute of the Limitation Act, nineteen sixty-three 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 based on public policy for fixing a life span for the legal remedy which may be taken 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.

In the matter of B.B. and D. Mfg. Co. versus ESI Corporation, A.I.R. nineteen seventy-two S.C. one thousand nine hundred thirty-five it was observed by the Supreme Court that- "The object of the Statutes of Limitations to compel a person to exercise his rights of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale,

fake or fraudulent claims. 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".

In Balakrishnan versus M.A. Krishnamurthy, nineteen ninety-eight seven S.C.C. one hundred twenty-three, 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 to the tactics but in general to seek remedy. It fixes the life span for legal injury suffered by the aggrieved person which has been enshrined in the maxim 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' which means the Law of Limitation is for general welfare and that the period is to be put into litigation and not meant to destroy the rights of the person or parties who are seeking remedy. The idea with regards to this is that every legal remedy must be alive for a legislatively fixed period of time".

The Law of Limitation is an adjective Law. It is lex fori. Thus, it can be said that the rules of the Law of Limitation are generally concerned with the rules of procedure and which do not create any rights in favour of any particular person nor do they define or create any cause of action. It has been simply prescribed that the remedy can be exercised only for a limited fixed period of time and not subsequently.

The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the plaintiff do not take dilatory tactics but seeks remedy within the period stipulated by the legislature. The rules of limitation thus will only bar the remedy but does not extinguish the right. The right continues to exist even through remedy is barred by limitation. Therefore, a debtor may pay the time barred debt and cannot claim it back on the plea that it was barred by limitation.

The Limitation Act is applicable to the suits brought by the plaintiff; they do not apply to a right setup by the defendant in defence. A defendant will not be precluded from setting up a right by way in defence, even if he could not have done so as plaintiff by way of substantive claim. But the principle that limitation ordinarily does not bar the defence is not applicable in the case of set off and counter claim. Any claim by way of set off or a counter claim shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted in the case of set off, on the same day that as the suit in which the set off is claimed and in the case of counter-claim on date on which the counter claim is made in court.

The law relating to Law of Limitation in India is the Limitation Act, eighteen fifty-nine and subsequently Limitation Act, nineteen sixty-three which was enacted on fifth of October, nineteen sixty-three and which came into force from first of January, nineteen sixty-four for the purpose of consolidating and amending the legal principles relating to limitation of suits and other legal proceedings.

The Salient Features of the Limitation Act:

SCHEME OF THE ACT

LIMITATION OF SUITS, APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS (SECTIONS THREE TO ELEVEN)

READING MATERIAL ON THE LIMITATION ACT, nineteen sixty-three

Section seven - Disability of one of several persons -

Section eleven. Suits on contracts entered into outside the territories to which the Act extends -

READING MATERIAL ON THE LIMITATION ACT, nineteen sixty-three

Section twelve. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings -

Section thirteen. Exclusion of time in cases where leave to sue or appeal as a pauper is applied for -

Fourteen. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction -

Fact:

READING MATERIAL ON THE LIMITATION ACT, ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-THREE

Section fifteen - Exclusion of time in certain other cases

Turner Morrison and Company Limited versus Hungerford Investment Trust Limited, A I R nineteen seventy-two S C one thousand three hundred eleven.

SECTION SIXTEEN - EFFECT OF DEATH ON OR BEFORE THE ACCRUAL OF RIGHT TO SUE.

SECTION SEVENTEEN - EFFECT OF FRAUD OR MISTAKE.

SECTION EIGHTEEN - EFFECT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IN WRITING.

Section nineteen - Effect of Payment on Account of Debt or of Interest on Legacy

Section twenty - Effect of Acknowledgment or Payment by Another Person

SECTION twenty-one -- EFFECT OF SUBSTITUTING OR ADDING NEW PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT

SECTION twenty-two --- CONTINUING BREACHES AND TORTS

SECTION twenty-three - SUITS FOR COMPENSATION FOR ACTS NOT ACTIONABLE WITHOUT SPECIAL DAMAGE

SECTION twenty-four - COMPUTATION OF TIME MENTIONED IN INSTRUMENT

PART- FOUR ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP BY POSSESSION

SECTION twenty-six - EXCLUSION IN FAVOR OF REVERSIONARY OF SERVANT TENEMENT -

SECTION twenty-seven - EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY

PART FIVE MISCELLANEOUS

ARTICLE one hundred thirty-six OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE LIMITATION ACT

Mangra Dhobi v. Khedua Baraik -

ADVERSE POSSESSION

SCOPE OF ARTICLES ONE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO AND ONE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR

Facts:

Decision: -

READING MATERIAL ON THE LIMITATION ACT, nineteen sixty-three

SUITS ON THE BASIS OF POSSESSION AND SUITS BASED ON PROPRIETARY TITLE.

ARTICLES SIXTY-FOUR AND SIXTY-FIVE: REASON FOR THE CHANGE IN LAW.

ARTICLES SIXTY-FOUR AND SIXTY-FIVE: DISTINCTION- ONE

JUDICIAL ACADEMY JHARKHAND

ARTICLES SIXTY-FOUR AND SIXTY-FIVE: DISTINCTION- TWO

ARTICLES SIXTY-FOUR AND SIXTY-FIVE DISTINCTION- THREE

READING MATERIAL ON THE LIMITATION ACT, NINETEEN SIXTY-THREE

Murti Dussadhin and others versus Surajdeo Singh and others, AIR nineteen sixty-five S C eight hundred seventy-five

ARTICLES sixty-four and sixty-five DISTINCTION- Four

ARTICLES sixty-four and sixty-five DISTINCTION- Five

ARTICLES sixty-four and sixty-five DISTINCTION- Six

READING MATERIAL ON THE LIMITATION ACT, nineteen sixty-three

SECTION six OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT AND ARTICLES sixty-four AND sixty-five OF THE LIMITATION ACT.

READING MATERIAL ON THE LIMITATION ACT, nineteen sixty-three

COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION

Overview

The Limitation Act of 1963 aims to impose time restrictions on legal actions to promote judicial efficiency and prevent stale claims. It is viewed as a necessary measure for public policy to ensure timely resolution of disputes.

Key Points

1The Limitation Act prescribes time limits for filing legal actions to promote efficiency
2It prevents the emergence of staleness in legal claims
3Rights may exist despite the bar on remedies due to expiration of limitation
4The Act applies to various types of legal suits, appeals, and applications
5It aims to serve the public interest by encouraging timely pursuit of justice.

Details

Category: Law and Legal Studies

PDF
Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, and Wilson Soluren
This document is a decision regarding the petition of Joevanie Arellano Tabasa, challenging his summary deportation by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation after losing his U.S. citizenship and claiming his right to repatriation to the Philippines.
PDF
PCC Guidelines on Merger Remedies
These guidelines outline the Philippine Competition Commission's approach to assessing remedies for mergers and acquisitions that may substantially prevent, restrict, or lessen competition, explaining key principles, types of remedies, considerations for design, and the remedies process.
PDF
In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation of Assets of Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. and Roxas Holdings, Inc.
This document is a decision issued by the Philippine Competition Commission regarding the proposed acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation of the assets of Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. and Roxas Holdings, Inc., assessing the transaction's potential impact on competition in the relevant market.
PDF
In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition by International Container Terminal Services, Inc. of Shares in the Manila North Harbour Port, Inc.
This document presents the Philippine Competition Commission's decision regarding the acquisition of shares in Manila North Harbour Port, Inc. by International Container Terminal Services, Inc., analyzing the competitive effects and market implications of the proposed transaction.
PDF
Manfredi and Others Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 13 July 2006
This document presents the judgment of the Court regarding preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of Article 81 EC in relation to insurance companies involved in unlawful agreements affecting civil liability auto insurance premiums.