Chapter-I

Introduction

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 after the exploration of
time-limit, is struck by the law of limitation. It's basically meant to protect the long and
established user and to indirectly punish persons who go into a long slumber over their rights.

The statutory law was established in stages. The very first Limitation Act was enacted for all
courts in India in 1859. And finally took the form of Limitation Act in 1963.

A citizen is not expected to master the various provisions which provide for limitation in
different matters but certain basic knowledge in this regard is necessary. For instance, Section 12
of the Limitation Act lays down certain guidelines regarding computation of limitation period. It
says that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from
which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded.

But our topic is related to Section 8 of the limitation Act provides certain exceptions to the rules
contain in Section 6 and 7. Section 8 comprising two parts as additional or supplementary
provisions provide the person suffering from a disability liberty to make a fresh start from the
date of the cessation of their disability. The first part of Section 8 lays down that suits for pre-
emption are not governed by section 6 and 7 of the act, and they must be proceeded with despite
the disability and that no extension of time will be granted on account of the disability of the
plaintiff. The second part provides that a person under disability may sue after the cessation of
the disability within same period as he would otherwise have been allowed under the Schedule
but in no case the period be extended to anything beyond three years from the cessation of the
disability. The law provides that the prescribed period of limitation computed from cessation of
the disability provided that if such period exceeds 3 years. He will not be entitled to the full
period but only three years from the date of the cessation of the disability. However, if the
ordinary period of limitation computed from the original accrual of the cause of action expires
more than three years after the cessation of the disability, such period will be allowed.

1
 Review of Literature

Shriniwas Gupta, (2010) The Limitation Act, Mr. Sriviniwas Gupta has brilliantly carved the
book on Limitation Law explaining the Legal concept. In this book Mr. Shriniwas Gupta also
discuss about much case law related to the topics and also give the expert comment related to
topic. Mr. Shriniwas Gupta has helped a lot in gathering the basic knowledge and the ongoing
debate about the Legal Disability under the Limitation law.

R.N. Choudhary, (2013), Law Relating to Limitation and Prescription: Mr. R. N. Choudhary
has briefly explained the reasoning behind acceptance of Legal Disability under Limitation Law
and how it will be implemented under this act. He also cited the judge’s opinion related to this
topic and judges reasoning behind the legal Disability and he also discuss about.

2
 Research Problem

This research is an attempt to critically analyze General Rule of Limitation Law which is given
under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and rules relating to the concept of legal disability
which is the exception of the Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This concept is enshrined in
Section 6 of the statute of Limitation Act, 1963. This concept also extends to other sections
within the same act like sections 7, 8 and 9 which play an important role in this concept. This
concept can be described as some kind of cooling off period wherein individuals or their legal
representatives of any form cannot file suits because of any legally induced disability- either
insanity, idiocy or minor age. Once this disability is over, only then can parties file suits or their
legal representatives can. This legal concept can be termed as some kind of eligibility criteria
that allows/disallows parties from contesting their legal claims. This area of law can termed to be
strictly time bound and allows concessions only when there is existence of some extra-ordinary
circumstances that justifies any corresponding extension.

Research Aim

The researcher aims to analyze in depth the various components of this legal concept, its
relationship with other sections and sub-sections in the Limitation act, the relation this concept
shares with other laws like that of Mental Health Act of 1987, Indian Majority Act of 1875, the
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 etc, important and relevant case laws that have shaped and re-
shaped this concept over the years, the recommendations of the Law commission among others
as well as what I personally conclude about this concept.
Research Objective

 To analyze the various components of this legal concept,

 Relation of Section 8 with Section 6 & 7.

Research Methodology

A doctrinal methodology of research has been adopted in the completion of this project report.
This includes both primary as well as secondary methods of doctrinal method of research. Source
utilized for the completion of this project include available book, articles, websites and statutes,
periodicals and e-post has been made where ever necessary

3
 Chapter-II

General Rule of Limitation: Section 3

 Limitation bars remedy but does not extinguish right

The law of limitation only bars the remedy by way of the suit i.e., if the period of limitation
expires, the party entitled to file a suit for the enforcement of a right is debarred from doing so.
However, the original right on which the suit was to be based is not barred. Thus, limitation only
bars the judicial remedy but it does not extinguish the right.
For example, where the recovery of a debt has become time barred by the lapse of the
prescribed period of limitation, the right to the debt is not extinguished. If the debtor, without
being aware of the bar of time, pays the debt he cannot sue the creditor to refund the money to
him on the ground that his claims for the recovery of the debt had become time barred.
It may be noted that there is one exception to the aforesaid rule which is contained in Section 27
of the Limitation Act, 1963. It provides that where a person‘s right to institute the suit for the
possession of any property has become barred by limitation, his right to the property itself shall
be extinguished.
 Limitation is the statute of repose, peace and justice
The statutes of limitation are statute of repose because they extinguish stale demands and quite
titles. They lay, at rest, claims which might otherwise have disturbed the peace of community.
They secure peace by ensuring security of rights and secure justice as by lapse of time, evidence
may have been destroyed.
In S. C. Parashar v.Vasant Sen, the Supreme Court has rightly observed that the statute of
limitation is a statute of repose, peace and justice.
The intention of the law of limitation is not to give a right where there is not one, but to interpose
a bar after certain period to a suit to impose an existing right. The object is to compel the litigant
to be diligent in seeking remedies in courts of law.
 Concept of time barred [section 3]
Concept of time barred is incorporated in Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963. According to this
section, every suit must be instituted, appeal must be preferred and application must be made
within the period of limitation as specified in the schedule II of Limitation Act. The provisions of
this section are absolute and mandatory. The court will not proceed with the suit, appeal or

4
application made beyond prescribed period of limitation and is liable to be dismissed when the
suit, appeal or application has become time barred.
It may be noted that if the defendant does not raise the objection, the Court may entertain the suit
even after the expiry of limitation period. In that case, the decision of the Court cannot be
challenged on the ground that the suit was time-barred.

Legal Disability: Section 6

According to Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a minor, insane or idiot may institute a suit or
make an application within the same period after the disability has ceased. 1 Persons under
disability are not subject to the ordinary rule of Limitation because the law considers them
incapable of forming a prior judgment as to bring suits or otherwise manage their own affairs;
Section 6 does not prevent the running of Limitation but only extends the period of Limitation2.
The extension is given upon the ground of disability of the person entitled to sue o apply. But
this section does not contain the entire law on the subject. It enumerates the kinds of disabilities
on accounts of which limitation will be extended. Section 6 excuses an insane person, minor and
idiot to file a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree within the time prescribed
by law and enable him to file the suit or make an application after the disability has ceased.
Besides, at the time of in computing the period of limitation, the disability period should be
excluded. In P. Sainath Reddy v. G. Narayana Reddy3, the court observed:

“Under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, where a person is under disability, being a minor or
insane or an idiot, the time during which the person is under disabilities has to be excluded:

Where there are several persons jointly entitled to instituted a suit, but one of such persons is
under a disability, limitation will run against all provided a discharge can be given without the
concurrence of such person; and

Where no such discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them:

1
Utha Moidu Haji v. Kuningarath kunhabdulla, 2006 (14) SCALE 156:[2006] Supp (10) SCR 886.
2
Karasani Kuianda Reddy v. Kathi China Venkata Reddy, 1997 (5) ALD 417; 1997 (5) ALT 672; Pannamma v.
Padmanabhan. AIR 1969 Ker 163.
3
AIR 1982 AP 247: 1982 (1) An WR 328.

5
  Until one of them becomes capable of giving such discharge without the concurrence of
the others; or
 Until the disability has ceased,

Therefore, Section 7 of the Limitation Act provides an exception to the general principle
embodies in Section 6.

 In Narayan Ramachandra Katkar vs. Arjun Bhimrao Gorge4, the Bombay High Court
held that Section 7 would apply only to a case where one the several persons jointly
entitled to institute a suit is under any such disability and a discharge cannot be given
without the concurrence of such person. Each of the sons who is a coparcener in a joint
family is entitled to question alienations made by the father, has an independent right of
his own. It is not a joint right of all the sons which cannot be enforced unless all of them
join so that the minority of one son could enlarge the period of Limitation. This Section
along with Section 6, is confined to suits and applications for executions of decrees by
persons under disability. It does not apply to appeals. This Section does not apply to
enforcement of rights of pre-emption since pre-emption has been specifically exempted
from the purview of Section 7.5

Applicability

section 6 is controlled by section 8 which serves as an exception to section 6 and 7.the combined
effect of section 6 and 8 is that where the ordinary period of limitation expires before the
cessation of the disability, for instance before the attainment of the majority, the minor will no
doubt be entitled to a fresh starting point of limitation from the attainment of his majority subject
to the condition that in no case the period extended by section 6 shall by virtue of section 8
exceed three years from the cessation of disability that is, attainment of majority.

Even during the disability period of the person the time will continue to run. It does not give a
new starting point of limitation. The provision only means that the person under the disability is
entitled to extension of time till the expiry of the period mentioned in the schedule calculated
from the cessation of his disability subject to the limit mentioned in the section 8. Section 6 does

4
AIR 1985 Bom 122; (1985) 87 Bom LR 680
5
A. K. Basu v. Krishan Kurup, AIR 1954 Trav. Cochin 237

6
not apply to the period of 12 years limitation prescribed by section 48 of Code of Civil
Procedure. It applies to proceeding under 209 of U.P Act 1 of 1951. But it does not apply to the
suits under Land Reforms Act, 1950. The section confers a personal privilege on the person
under disability, a privilege confined to him and not ensuring for the benefits of his assigns or
even his legal representatives, excepting in a case falling under sub-section (3) of the section .

Section 6 is also applicable to Fatal Accidents Act. The law is fairly settled that a son born in a
joint Hindu family acquires by birth interest in ancestral property, but does not acquire any
interest in any right to sue. Now new cause of action accrues upon the subsequent birth of a son
in the family. Consequently, a fresh period of limitation does not start from the date of his birth.
When he was not born on the date of transfer, he could not be said to be suffering from any
disability on that date and eventually cannot take advantage of section 6. Section 6, 7 and 8 of
the Limitation Act must be read together. Section 8 imposes a limitation on concession provided
under section sections 6 and 7 to a person under disability to a maximum of three years after the
cessation of the disability.

Disability Covered By S.6:

Only disability covered by s. 6 are minority, lunacy and idiocy of the person entitled to sue or
file an application for execution. The insolvency of the parties does not attract s. 6.

Applicability of s. 6 to the period prescribed special and local laws. Section 6 has been made
applicable to the special and local laws unless expressly excluded in view of s. 29 of the
Limitation Act. But when s. 6 expressly states that the extension in that section is limited to the
period of the limitation specified in the third column of the Act, s. 6 cannot apply to the period of
limitation prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. In one decision it has been held that s. 6
does not apply to the limitation prescribed by s. 48, Code of Civil Procedure.

Appeals by minor not attracted:

Section 6 does not attract to the appeals when minors wants to prefer an appeal against the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court during his minority in which he was represented by
his guardian. The reason behind exclusion of s. 6 to appeal is that when a suit is instituted the
next friend is appointed for a defendant or the plaintiff by the court under Or 32, Code of Civil
Procedure and the decree passed in the suit in the presence of the guardian ad item is binding on

7
the minor and that at best it is only voidable and not void. However when a judgment and decree
was passed during the minority and the minor on attaining majority wanted to prefer appeal
against the said judgment and decree, the Kerela High Court has held that even though the appeal
is barred by the limitation but making liberal approach to the interpretation of s. 5 of the
Limitation Act with special reference to the disability of the minor, the delay in filing the appeal
ought to be condoned under s. 5 of the Limitation Act.

Disability of One of Several Persons: Section 7

Section 7 is applicable where several persons are jointly entitled to institute the suit or make an
application for execution of a decree and out of the several persons, one or some of them are
affected by ‗legal disability‘
The period of limitation in such a case is to be reckoned, depending upon whether discharge can
be made with or without the consent of the person under Legal disability, If the discharge can be
given with the consent of such person, the period of limitation will start only after the disability
is removed. On the other hand, where consent of the person under legal disability is not required,
time will run against them all.
It may be noted that section 7 is not applicable to appeals

Special Exceptions: Section 8

Section 8 of the limitation Act provides certain exceptions to the rules contains in Section 6 and
7. Section 8 comprising two parts as additional or supplementary provisions provides the person
suffering from a disability liberty to make a fresh start from the date of the cessation of their
disability. The first part of Section 8 lays down that suits for pre-emption are not governed by
section 6 and 7 of the act, and they must be proceeded with despite the disability and that no
extension of time will be granted on account of the disability of the plaintiff. The second part
provides that a person under disability may sue after the cessation of the disability within same
period as he would otherwise have been allowed under the Schedule but in no case the period be
extended to anything beyond three years from the cessation of the disability. The law provides
that the prescribed period of limitation computed from cessation of the disability provided that if
such period exceeds 3 years. He will not be entitled to the full period but only three years from
the date of the cessation of the disability. However, if the ordinary period of limitation computed

8
from the original accrual of the cause of action expires more than three years after the cessation
of the disability, such period will be allowed.

 In Smt. Devkoo v. Smt. Rama Dogra6 the Himanchal Pradesh High Court held that the
limitation for filing a suit for profession on basis of title is 12 years, however, in case of
disability, limitation is extended by three years, from when such disability ceases.
 In the case of Dina Nath Roy v. Nath Biswas7, a deduction of time during which a
previous litigation was pending was allowed but it is not very clear whether on any
general principle or by reason of the fact that the plaintiffs were in the position of persons
whose claim had been satisfied.

There are well-recognized exceptions to the above-mentioned rule of Section 9 and one
exceptions is provided by the proviso to the Section itself which lays down that where letters of
administration to the estate of a creditors have been granted to the debtor, the running of the time
prescribed for a suit to discover the debt shall be suspended while the administration continues.8
The principle behind this proviso is that the position of a debtor and creditors in such a case
becomes intermixed for the time being, and therefore, limitation does get suspended.9

Therefore, the principle behind this proviso is that the position of a debtor and creditors in such a
case becomes intermixed for the time being, and therefore, limitation does get suspended.10
Therefore, the principle laid down in the Section 9 is subject to certain exceptions, where time
has begun to run. It can be stopped, provided the cause of action which has given the right to sue
is discharged or disappears in any way.

 In Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. V. Naba Kumar Singh Dudhoria11 the Culcutta High
Court held that the period of limitation can be extended to three class, viz.,
 Where injustice has been causes through an act of court,
 Where the cause of action was satisfied, and
 Where the cause of actions was cancelled.

6
1993 (1) Shim LC 68.
7
86 Ind. Cas. 130: AIR (1925) Cal 456.
8
Krishna Gupta v. D. D. Sadhotra, 2008 (1) JKJ 30; Jugdish Chander v. Punjab National Bank, 1998 RLR 254.
9
Shyantharan Tiwari v. Kanhaiyalal, AIR 1967 Raj 176.
10
Minal Doshi: The Mental Health Act in India
11
Anurag K. Agrawal, “Implementing or Amending the Mental Health Act, 1987”

9
 Continuous Running of Time: Section 9
Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that where the limitation period has started, no
subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application can stop it. The section
embodies the principle that once the time for filing suit or an application starts running, it will
continue to run till it has exhausted the full prescribed period. The running process can only be
stopped or suspended by express statutory exceptions.
Disability‘ connotes legal disability. It is want of legal qualification to act i.e., want of capacity
to act. It is the state of being minor, insane and idiot. ‗Inability‘, on the other hand, connotes
want of physical power to act. Illness, poverty, ignorance, etc. are some of the instances of
inability.
It may be noted that section 9 is applicable only to suit and applications. It does not apply to
appeals.

10
 Chapter-III
Rules Pertaining To Legal Disability in Limitation Act
A major part of rules pertaining to legal disability are enshrined in its parent act, which is that of
Limitation Act, especially sections 6,7 and 9 that describe with a great deal of detail the different
aspects of technical acumen. These sections ably support one another9.
Section 3 of the Limitation Act is a very important section. It deals with the different time-
periods that are to be allowed to parties to file cases, beyond which the concept of limitation
debars parties from filing any suits. However, it is to be noticed that this section also provides for
some exceptions- in cases of extraordinary situations that lie in sections 4-24 of the Limitation
Act10.
Minority, idiocacy and insanity are the different grounds under sections 6 and 7 of the act that
allow parties to file suits after the time period when the disability is over. The disability has to
compulsorily exist at the time from which period of limitation is supposed to begin. After such a
time period has already begun, no subsequent disability can lead to resetting of this clock as per
section 9 of the Limitation Act11.
A per section 6 (2), if a person is suffering from multiple disabilities ie at least two or if such a
person has got rid of one form of disability and is suffering from a new one, then in such
situations he/she can only file a suit after these multiple disabilities or the newer disability has
ceased to exist12. Section 8 makes it amply clear that the concept or pre-emptive action does not
exist in this case and that the time period for limitation is three years after the death of such a
person or the ceasing of his disability13.

11
 Rules Pertaining To Legal Disability in Civil Procedure Code, 1908
There are some provisions pertaining to legal disability in Civil Procedure Code of 1908. Some
of these sections are-
 Under order 8 rule 5(1) of the CPC, it has been said that if a specific charge has not been
denied specifically or not admitted by a defendant then it would be admitted specifically
except against those persons suffering from legal disabilities14.
 Section 6 (3) of limitation act of 1963 empowers legal representatives to file a suit after
the death of a person suffering from legal disability15, this provision is supported by
order 22 rule 3 (1) of the CPC that makes legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff
party to a suit16.

 Under rule 4A of order 22, the court can appoint an administer General or an officer of
the court as it thinks fit to represent the estate of the deceased person, in case there are no
legal representatives left17.
 Under rule 1 (1) of order 23 of the CPC, a suit where the plaintiff is a minor or any other
person to whom rules 1 to 14 of order 31 extend, then a suit can be withdrawn only after
the court has been satisfied as explained in rule 3 of order 23 on the grounds of formal
defect or existence of grounds to file a fresh suit. In the case of Joannala Sura Reddy V.
Tiyyagura Srinivasa12, it was said that no fresh suit can be filed if the previous suit has
not been withdrawn after taking the court’s consent under rules1and 3 of order 23.
 Under rule 12 of Order 32 of CPC, which deals with suits filed by minors on them
attaining majority, it was said in the case of Vidya Wati (deceased) through her L.Rs. V.
Hans Raj (deceased) through his L.Rs13 that under the specific provision mentioned
above no dismissal of the suit is needed in case minor has decided not to pursue the
matter after attaining majority.

12
AIR 2004 AP 22218
13
AIR 1993 Del 18719

12
 Chapter-IV
Relevant Case Laws Pertaining To Legal Disability
While this list is not exhaustive, it aims to cover important cases across several high courts and
Supreme Courts that can be termed to be very crucial in having developed practices associated
with the mechanism of legal disability. These include-
 Darshan Singh V Gurdev Singh14- Section 6 allows the minor to extend the limitation to
some more time and entitles the minor, insane or idiot to institute the suit or make the
application within the same period prescribed in the third column of the Schedule to the
Act after the said legal disability has come to an end. Special limitation explained in
Section 8 of the act has explained that extended period after cessation of the disability
will not cover beyond three years of the death of such legally disabled person or cessation
of his said legal disability.
In each case, the plaintiff is considered to be empowered by section 8 to a fresh starting period of
limitation from the date of cessation of disability, which is consequently subject to the condition
that the period of such extension under Section 6 or 7. The plaintiff can thus file a suit within this
time period before limitation debars it.
 Udhavji Anandji Ladha and Ors. Vs Bapudas Ramdas Darbar15- Section 6 does not
cover in any way any “intervening” kind of legal disability. When a legal disability is in
existence, only then can section 6 be successfully applied. But if a person cannot be
termed to be suffering from any kind of legal disability when such a limitation time-line
begins, he cannot in any way avail the relaxation of standards offered by section-6. While
reading Section 3, the period of limitation for suits has to be considered by reading
Schedule 1 with Sections 4 to 25of the Limitation Act; and, therefore prescribed for a suit
by a minor cannot be the period mentioned in Schedule 1, but a special period that is
described in Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, in the case of a minor it cannot be said that
the period for filing suits under section 6 has expired without taking into account the
provisos involved. This ensures that the right of minors to contest suits is not taken away,
without offering them any reasonable time period to do so accordingly.

14
Darshan Singh V Gurdev Singh, 1995 AIR 75, 1994 SCC (6) 585.
15
Udhavji Anandji Ladha and Ors. vs Bapudas Ramdas Darbar, AIR 1950 Bom 94.

13
  Lalchand Dhanalal vs Dharamchand and Ors.16- This case stated that cause of action or
grievance must take place when the plaintiff (in this particular case the administratrix)
dies and the period of limitation is thus initiated with no subsequent disability leading to
reset of that clock as per section 9 of the Limitation Act. A plaintiff can only rightfully
claim benefit only if such a right existed due to a legal disability as and when the period
of limitation began. Any subsequent disability on his part will not stop the running of
limitation. Consequently, he will be governed by the same period of limitation as the
earlier limited owner, but such a disability can come into his defence if his claims are
independent of the earlier claimant’s plea.
 Bapu Tatya Desai vs Bala Raojee Desai - This case stated the purpose of section 7 of the
Limitation act is to regulate the supposed indulgence that is available to minors to ensure
that the benefit of section 6 of the Limitation act does not extend to a correspondingly
long period of time but only till the eldest of the lot does not end up as a major17.
 Smt. Usha Rani Banerjee & Ors. Vs. Premier Insurance Company Ltd, Madras & Ors.
AIR 1983 Allahabad 27- Section 7 had to be taken as an exception to the general
principle enunciated by Section 6 and held that if there are multiple individuals that were
jointly entitled to institute a suit and if one of them was disabled, time would not run
against any of them until the disability ceased to exist. But if one of the persons entitled
to institute the suit was competent to give discharge without the concurrence of the other,
then time would begin to run against both of them18.
 T. Kunhammad and Ors. Vs M. Narayanan Nambudiri's Son - If under some
substantive law, a particular law entitles that a legally able person can represent an entire
group, he/she can be termed to be powerful enough to discharge that right without any
consultation with the other members of that group. Section 7 would not operate in the
case of all the joint creditors under disability were well covered by Section 6 of the Act.
It is not considered important whether a valid discharge is given by the person competent
to give the same. The only question is whether he could give it under the ambit of section

16
Lalchand Dhanalal vs Dharamchand and Ors. , AIR 1965 MP 102.
17
See Bapu Tatya Desai vs Bala Raojee Desai, (1920) 22 BOMLR 1383,
18
Supra note 6.

14
 7 of the Limitation Act. A valid discharge of the suit under section 7 can take place by a
major with/without the concurrence of the minors19.

Recommendations Made By Law Commission

The Law Commission of India in its eight-ninth report in 1963, focused on the Limitation act and
thus came up with the following pieces of recommendations which included the following parts
specifically on legal disability20-
 The Limitation act dealt with the concept of legal disability amply within sections 6-8 of
the act, with section 9 acting as a proviso of sorts.

 The commission came up with the idea of not having any pre-emptive concept of legal
disability in this act as they felt that firstly pre-emption as a concept worked on a very
small time frame and the legislature at multiple junctions felt that there was no severe
need to bring this in. There were several special provisions for extending the time period,
hence no such further addition was supposed to be necessary21.

 The commission also felt that the grammatical aspects of some sections could be
improved. It was suggested that section 7 should be re-drafted to do away with the
expression of “time will not run” in order to do away with any ensuing confusion22.

Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that the Law Commission of India has on occasions felt
that laws pertaining to legal disability have been drafted well enough to suggest only one change.

19
T. Kunhammad and Ors. Vs M. Narayanan Nambudiri's Son, AIR 1964 Ker 8.
20
Law Commission of India, Eighty Ninth report on The Limitation Act, 1963.
21
Id., Chapter 16, §16-E
22
Id., Chapter 44, §4.

15
 Chapter-V
Conclusion
Thus, after analyzing the various aspects of the mechanism of legal disability wit Section 8 of the
Limitation Act-its definitions, its components, its developmental history, the various important case-
laws etc, I conclude that this mechanism in the Limitation act has far reaching ramifications that can
systematically extend over a long period of time.
This law is primarily meant for usage by legally discredited individuals and their legal
representatives to rightfully claim within a reasonable time period what is rightfully theirs. Since,
such individuals are not legally entitled to file suits for such purposes; there can be occasions where
they are wrongfully deprived of their claims and dues. It is meant to ensure that legal insanity or
minority does not in any way deprive such persons of their legal rights. However, this defensive
mechanism could also be potentially misused and thus several caveat provisions like that of the three
year period have been introduced to keep a fair check on both the sides involved in a dispute.
This concept has been shaped importantly by various case laws decided by different high courts as
well as the Supreme Court. The Law commission on the contrary, has felt that the law is reasonably
clear; it is amply evident from the fact that in their previous reports they have suggested just one
change that of in section 7. However, on a personal level, I feel that this very law is very much
accurate and is ably supported by the judicial machinery to ensure negligible misuse of its provisions.

16
BIBLIOGRAPHY-
 indiankanoon.org

 infochange.india.org

 indiacode.nic.in

 bharatchugh.wordpress.com

 Universal’s Bare Act with Short Notes, 2014- The Limitation Act, 1963.

 Universal’s Bare Act with Short Notes, 2014-The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.

 Civil Procedure Code with Limitation Act, 1963 By C.K Takwani, seventh
edition, 2013.

17