Concept and object of limitation

CONCEPT AND
OBJECT OF
LIMITATION
-Madhubala Solanki
-2013064

Concept of limitation
 What does limitation mean?
 Limitation means a prescribed time limit
according to statute.
 The concept of limitation is related with the
fixing or prescribing of period for barring
legal actions.
 Limitation periods impose time limits within
which a party must bring a claim, or give
notice of a claim to the other party. They
are imposed by statute, primarily the
Limitation Act.

Object of Limitation
 The laws of limitation are founded on public
policy.
 In Halsbury’s Laws of England, the objects of
the Limitation Acts have been presented as
follows:
 “The Courts have expressed at least three
different reasons supporting the existence of
statutes of limitation, namely,—
(i) That long dormant claims have more of
cruelty than justice in them;
(ii) That a defendant might have lost the
evidence to dispute the State claim;
(iii) That persons with good causes of actions
should pursue them with.

c
 The object of limit in legal actions is to
give effect to two maxims ‘interest
reipublicae ut sit finis litium’ i.e. the interest
of the State requires that there should be
limit to litigation
 Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura
subveniunt i.e. The law assist the vigilant
and not one who sleeps over his rights
 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 moral.”

Salient features of Limitation
Act
 Limitation Act of 1963 contains:
1. First Division deals with Suits (Articles 1-
113)
2. Second Division deals with Appeals (
Articles 114-117)
3. Third Division deals with Applications
(Articles 118-137)
Rules of limitation are prima facie rules of
procedure and do not create any rights in
favour of any person nor do they define or
create cause of action but simply prescribe
that the remedy could be exercised only up
to a certain period and not subsequently.

Rajender Singh & Ors vs Santa
Singh & Ors 1974 SCR (1) 381
 The Ps (A), filed an appeal in a suit for possession of
land against the Ds The plaintiffs were the sons of
Smt. Premi, a daughter of Sham Singh (Deceased),
the original owner of the plots, and of Smt. Malan, who
was the widow of Sham Singh, had gifted the plots in
dispute in 1935, half and half, to the plaintiffs and Smt.
Khemi, the younger sister of their deceased mother,
Smt. Premi.
 It appears that Smt. Khemi, who was issueless, had
also made a gift in favour of the Plaintiffs before her
death in 1944. The plaintiffs are, said to have obtained
possession of the whole land in dispute thus gifted to
them.' But, as there was considerable uncertainty at
that time about the rights of the daughters and the
powers of a widow to donate during her life time under
the customary law in Punjab, which was applicable to
the parties.

f there was also a dispute over mutation of names
between the Ps and Ds in revenue courts which ended
finally by judgment and decree of a Division Bench of
the Punjab High Court passed in favour of the
appellants on 21-11-1958.
 The plaintiffs asserted, in their suit filed on 16-4-1959,
now before SC that the Ds had taken illegal and
forcible possession of the land in dispute after the
decision of the High Court on 21-11-1958, and that, as
the DS refused to deliver possession of the land to the
plaintiffs, they were compelled to file their suit for
possession. The Ds, however, claimed that they had
taken possession over the whole of the land in dispute
after the death of Smt. Khemi, issueless, in 1944, and
that, since then, they had been in open, continuous,
exclusive possession as owners, adversely to the rest
of the world. Hence, according to the defendants-
respondents, the plaintiffs' suit was barred by
limitation.

Decision
 Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, the
adverse possession of the defendants, who were
appellants before the High Court, commenced during
the pendency of the earlier suit, and, once having
begun to run, could not stop running merely because of
the pendency of the defendants' suit for possession
which was finally dismissed by the High Court on 21-11-
1958. On the other hand the doctrine of lis pendens,
contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,
would enable the plantiffs-appellants to overcome the
consequences of defendants' adverse possession until
21-11-1958 so that the doctrine of lis pendens could
operate as a provision enabling exclusion of time during
the pendency of the defendants' suit of 1940.
 Appeal dismissed.

Interpretation by the court
 In this case the Supreme Court of
India has held “The object of the law
of limitation is to prevent disturbance
or deprivation of what may have been
acquired in equity and justice by long
enjoyment or what may have been lost
by a party’s own inaction, negligence
or latches.”

B.B. & D. Mfg. Co. v. ESI
Corpn., (AIR 1972 SC 1935
 the Supreme Court has observed 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.”

Important limitation dates
 Contract: within six years of the date of breach;
 Contract under seal (deeds): within 12 years of
the breach of contract or deed.
 Negligence (other than personal injury or death):
within six years of the negligent act or omission; or
(if later) within three years from the date of
knowledge in cases of latent damage;
 claims for negligent latent damage are barred 15
years after the negligent act or omission;
 period runs from the date the damage is suffered;
 for physical damage, the limitation period runs
from the date of the damage itself – not the act
which causes damage.
 Tort (generally, including conversion and
trespass): within six years of the date of the cause
of action.

h
 Fraud: within six years;
 Libel, slander and malicious falsehood:
within one year;
 A claim for the recovery of land,
proceeds of sale or land or money
secured by a mortgage or charge:
within 12 years from the right accruing –
after that time, the claimant's title in the
proceeds, land or mortgage is
extinguished.
 To enforce a judgement: within six years
of the date on which the judgement

Concept and object of limitation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Concept and object of limitation (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Concept and object of limitation