Concept and object of limitation

Concept and doctrine of limitation in law and object of the particular legislation.

1. Concept and Object of Limitation Madhubala Solanki 2013064

2. 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. 

3. 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.

4. 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.”

5. Salient features of Limitation Act Limitation Act of 1963 contains: First Division deals with Suits (Articles 1-113) Second Division deals with Appeals ( Articles 114-117) 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.

6. 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. Ds filed suit for possession of the land in dispute in 1940. 

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.”

10. 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.”

11. 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.

12. 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 became enforceable.

13. ThanQ 