University Institute Of

Legal Studies
Panjab University

CPC
EFFECT OF DISABILITY OR
INABILITY ON LIMITATION

Submitted to:

Submitted by:

Dr. Karan Jawanda,

Harshit Anand

(CPC)

136/12, 8th sem.

UILS,PU.

B.com.llb.(Hons)

Acknowledgement
I wish to convey my greatest appreciation to Dr. KARAN JAWANDA, a
professional professor and great mentor, who challenged and organized my
thoughts and helped convert them to the written words.
I would also like to thank UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,
PANJAB

UNIVERSITY,

CHANDIGARH,

for

their

initial

faith

and

encouragement that I submit my project report.

I am indebted to my friends and other family members for providing
kindness and help in making this project.

2 | Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO

TOPIC

Page No

1.

Introduction

2.

History

4-6

3.

Object of the law of limitation

6-7

4.

Construction of the law of limitation

5.

Bars remedy not extinguish right

6.

Provisions regarding legal disability

8-10

7.

Applicability

10-11

8.

Disability covered

11-12

9.

Effect of disability

12-14

10.

Applicability to child in womb

14

11.

Calculating the period

14-16

12.

Conclusion

17

13.

Bibliography

18

3 | Page

Introduction
Law is the back-bone for the standing of the peaceful and live society. It
lives and changes with the change in the society. The mortality is the fate of
every life. The nature and its laws follow it without break and deviations. So
would be the fate with the litigations, because there is no good to the society
in keeping them to be live for sine-die period. The law of limitation is founded
on the Latin maxim Interest republicae ut sit finis litium , which
means that it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation. The
Honble Supreme Court in Rajendar Singh v. Santa Singh1 held that the
object of the law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation may
have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may
have been lost by a partys own inaction, negligence or laches.

History
The traces of law of limitations can be observed in almost every period
(Yuga) of Hindu mythology i.e. Sat, Treta, Dwapar & now in Kali. Example can
be seen in Ramayan & Mahabharat also.
However, some writers2 state that under the Hindu Jurisprudence there was
only a law of prescription and no law of limitation as such. For the acquisition
of the title by prescription a period of 20 years was laid down by certain
Smriti writers though others differed regarding the length of period. The main
occupation of the people being agriculture and there being very little

1 AIR 1973 SC 2537

2 P.Basus commentary on Limitation Act; 6th Edition, 2006, pp.1,7
4 | Page

commerce or trade, concentration was more on the land and the rights
therein.
This was the position not only in Hindu society but also in other countries;
thus in England before James Statute of 1523 there was no specific Law of
Limitation.
1523 A.D

James Statute introduced in England for the Law of

Limitation.
1793 A.D.

From 1793 A.D. Regulations were passed from time to time

for fixing the limitation for institution of action; but

1858 A.D.

Before 1859 i.e. till 1858 two systems of Law of Limitation

were adopted by the Courts in India. In Presidency towns viz. Calcutta,

Madras and Bombay the English Law was followed; whereas in Moffusills
courts administered the law as laid down by the Regulations which passed
from time to time.
1859 A.D.

First time Act XIV of 1859 was passed a law on the subject

Limitation.
1862 A.D.
1871 A.D.
1877 A.D.

Act XIV of 1859 came in to operation.

Act XIX of 1871.
Act XV of 1877. Later some Amending Acts were also

passed.
1908 A.D.

Finally, the question of consolidating and amending the

law relating to limitation for Suits, Appeals and Applications was taken up
and the Limitation Act of 1908 (IX of 1908) was passed.
27th July, 1956 Law commission in the 3rd Report dt. 27-7-1956 made
various recommendations pertaining to the limitation law.

5 | Page

23rd Dec, 1960

On the recommendation of the Law Commission a Bill of

that intent was introduced in the Parliament but it lapsed on account of

dissolution of the Lok-Sabha.
1962 A.D.

The above mentioned Bill was again introduced in the

Parliament. This Bill of 1960/62 seeks to implement the 3rd Report of the Law
Commission on the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, with one important
modification. While giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission
as respects the re-arrangements of the Articles contained in the 1st Schedule
in accordance with their subject-matter of the rationalization of the periods
of limitation as far as possible, it is felt that it would be more advantageous
to adhere to the existing scheme which in almost all cases indicates the
specific points of time from which the period of limitation begins to run.
5th Oct, 1963

Assent of the President on the Limitation Bill was

accorded; and thus The Limitation Act, 1963 came in to existence.

1st Jan, 1964

The Limitation Act, 1963 came in to force.

Object of the Law of Limitation

The object of the Law of Limitation is well known that interest of the State
requires that there should be an end of litigation.
The utility of a Statute of Limitation has never been a matter of serious doubt
or dispute. It has been said that the Statute of Limitation is a Statute of
repose, peace, and justice. It is one of the repose, because it extinguishes
stale demands and quiets title, in the words of John Voet, controversies are
restricted to a fixed period of time lest they become immortal while men are
mortal. It secures peace as it ensures security of rights and secures justice,
as by lapse of time evidence in support of rights may have been destroyed.
There can be thus being no doubt that it (The Law of Limitation) rests on the
6 | Page

sound policy. The operation of the law of prescription has been explained by
Lord Plunket in a striking metaphor. He stated that time holds in on hand a
scythe and in the other, a hour-glass. The scythe moves down the evidence
of our rights while the hourglass measures the period which renders that
evidence superfluous. Commenting on this a learned author observes that
the metaphor could have been completed by adding, so far as India is
concerned, that the frame work of the hour-glass will certainly decay, the
glass be broken and the sand escape3.
The object or 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 laches.
(Rajender Singh and Ors.Vs.Santa Singh and Ors.)4
Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are
meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their
remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the
damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered.
Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of
time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek
legal remedy by approaching the courts. So, a life-span must be fixed for
each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to
unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus
founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest re publicae ut
sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation).
The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed

3 Report of the Law Commission of India on the Limitation Act, p.1

4 AIR 1973 SC 2537
7 | Page

period of time. (Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India

Staff Association.)5

Construction of the Law of Limitation

Law of limitation is not meant to be an aid to unconscionable conduct,
although, if a claim is clearly barred, the Court must unhesitatingly dismiss
the suit. It is a law of repose, peace and justice which bars the remedy after
the lapse of a particular period by way of public policy and expediency
without extinguishing the right except in certain cases. Therefore, the Court
must lean against limitation and in favor of the subsistence of the right to
sue where two views are clearly possible. When there is the benefit of a
reasonable doubt in the matter of construction of a statement relied upon to
serve as an acknowledgment to save limitation, the benefit of that doubt
should go to the plaintiff. That is what V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. said in Eapen
Panicker v. Krishna Panicker6, following earlier Supreme Court decisions.
(vide Craft Centre and Ors. v. The Koncherry Coir Factories,
Cherthala)7

Law of Limitation bars the remedy and does not extinguish

the right
As has been laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Popat and Kotecha
Propertys case8,the Law of Limitation bars only the remedy and does not
extinguish the rights of the parties.
5 (2005)7SCC510
6 (1970 KLT 42)
7 AIR1991Ker83
8 | Page

Illustration:
A enters into an agreement with B on 1st January, 2003, to sell his property
for a certain sum of money and receives some advance. He agrees to
execute a sale deed within two months, but later on refuses to do so. B can
file a suit for specific performance of contract within three years from 1st
March, 2003, as per article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act). However B does not file the suit till 1st March 2006
and thereafter the suit is barred by limitation. But on account of good sense
if A performs the contract, even 1st March 2006, nobody is going to stop him,
nor he can later file a suit to get the sale deed cancelled on the ground that
he was not obliged to perform the contract after the limitation.
Exception: However there is an exception to the aforesaid rule. Section 27
of the Act says that at the determination of the period hereby limited to any
person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such
property shall be extinguished. This provision has been kept because the
adverse possession creates an absolute ownership in favor of the person who
is in adverse possession

Provisions regarding legal disability or inability

Section 6.Legal disability9(1) Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the
execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to
be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make
the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as

8 supra 5
9 Bare Act, The Limitation Act,1963, Universal Publications, 2007
9 | Page

would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefore in the
third column of the Schedule.
(2) Where such person is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to
be reckoned, affected by two such disabilities, or where, before his disability
has ceased, he is affected by another disability, he may institute the suit or
make the application within the same period after both disabilities have
ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified.
(3) Where the disability continues up to the death of that person, his legal
representative may institute the suit or makes the application within the
same period after the death, as would otherwise have been allowed from the
time so specified.
(4) Where the legal representative referred to in sub section (3) is, at the
date of the death of the person whom he represents, affected by any such
disability, the rules contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply.
(5) Where a person under disability dies after the disability ceases but within
the period allowed to him under this section, his legal representative may
institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the
death, as would otherwise have been available to that person had he not
died.
Explanation. -For the purposes of this section, minor includes a child in
the womb.
Section 7. Disability of one of several persons10Where on of several persons jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an
application for the execution of a decree is under any such disability, and a
discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run
against them all; but, where no such discharge can be given, time will not
10 Bare Act, The Limitation Act,1963, Universal Publications, 2007
10 | P a g e

run as against any of them until one of them becomes capable of giving such
discharge without the concurrence of the others or until the disability has
ceased.
Explanation 1 -This section applies to discharge from every kind of liability,
including a liability in respect of any immovable property.
Explanation II-For the purposes of this section, the manager of a Hindu
undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law shall he deemed to be
capable of giving a discharge without the concurrence of-the other members
of the family only if he is in management of the joint family property.
Section 8. Special exceptions11Nothing in Section 6 or in Section 7 applies to suits to enforce rights of preemption, or shall be deemed to extend, for more than three years from the
cessation of the disability or the death of the person affected thereby, the
period of limitation for any suit or application.
Section 9. Continuous running of time12Where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to
institute a suit or make an application stops it:
Provided that where letters of administration to the estate of a
creditor have been granted to his debtor, the running of the period of
limitation for a suit to recover the debt shall be suspended while the
administration continues

Applicability
11 Bare Act, The Limitation Act,1963, Universal Publications, 2007
12 Ibid
11 | P a g e

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 gives 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 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
12 | P a g e

section sections 6 and 7 to a person under disability to a maximum of three

years after the cessation of the disability.

Disability covered
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.
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 litem is binding on 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 Kerala 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.
13 | P a g e

Effect of disability
Statutes of limitations are designed to aid defendants. A plaintiff, however,
can prevent the dismissal of his action for untimeliness by seeking to toll the
statute. When the statute is tolled, the running of the time period is
suspended until some event specified by law takes place. Tolling provisions
benefit a plaintiff by extending the time period in which he is permitted to
bring suit.
Various events or circumstances will toll a statute of limitations. It is tolled
when one of the parties is under a legal disabilitythe lack of legal capacity
to do an actat the time the cause of action accrues. A child or a person
with a mental illness is regarded as being incapable of initiating a legal
action on her own behalf. Therefore, the time limit will be tolled until some
fixed time after the disability has been removed. For example, once a child
reaches the age of majority, the counting of time will be resumed. A personal
disability that postpones the operation of the statute against an individual
may be asserted only by that individual. If a party is under more than one
disability, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until all the
disabilities are removed. Once the statute begins to run, it will not be
suspended by the subsequent disability of any of the parties unless specified
by statute.13
Mere ignorance of the existence of a cause of action generally does not toll
the statute of limitations, particularly when the facts could have been
learned by inquiry or diligence. In cases where a cause of action has been
fraudulently concealed, the statute of limitations is tolled until the action is,
or could have been, discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
Ordinarily, silence or failure to disclose the existence of a cause of action
13 Union of india v. Ram charan, AIR 1964 SC 215
14 | P a g e

does not toll the statute. The absence of the plaintiff or defendant from the
jurisdiction does not suspend the running of the statute of limitations, unless
the statute so provides.
The statute of limitations for a debt or obligation may be tolled by either an
unconditional promise to pay the debt or an acknowledgement of the debt.
The time limitation on bringing a lawsuit to enforce payment of the debt is
suspended until the time for payment established under the promise or
Acknowledgment has arrived. Upon that due date, the period of limitations
will start again.14
Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the
execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to
be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make
the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as
would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefore in third
column of the schedule. The word suit has not been defined in the Limitation
Act, 1963. The suit according to the section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure
is instituted by the presentation of plaint or such or in such other manner as
may be prescribed. Sub-section (2)15 clearly provides that provisions of the
section 4 to 24 apply to all the enactments. It means that aforesaid
provisions are also the part of the Act. The main question for determination is
whether the claim filed by the appellant falls within the definition of the
words.
Now the question is whether the section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is
applicable to such cases the limitation of which are provided in the schedule
or it applies to other cases also of which the limitation is not provided in the
schedule. Sub section (2) of the section 29 of the Limitation Act provides that
14 Phool rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia,1973 1 SCC 688
15 section 29 of The Limitation Act, 1963
15 | P a g e

where any local or special law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application, a
period of limitation different from the limitation prescribed by the schedule,
the provisions of the section 3 shall applies as if such periods were
prescribed by the schedule. As the schedule is amended by the virtue of the
sub section (2) of the section 9 by the provisions of the act, the claimed
application can be dismissed under section 3 of the Limitation Act, if it is not
filed within.

Applicability to child in womb

For the computation age the starting age the starting point is the date of
birth: but the law nowhere provides the time spend by the child in the womb
is not to be regarded as a period of minority. A child in the womb can take
advantage of the provisions of section 6 and 8.
Section 6 of the Limitation Act would apply to the case of a child in the
womb. A child in the mothers womb is deemed to be in existence, at least
for purpose of inheritance and thus has a right to challenge any transaction
which affects its interest at the time. If so, it has a right of action or cause of
action in respect of the said transaction and is entitled to institute a suit
upon the same and, as such a child, as aforesaid cannot, under the Indian
Majority Act be held to be a minor that is, a person suffering from disability,
as contemplated in the section.

Calculating the period

For calculating the period of limitation for a minor, the date on which the
minor attains majority must be excluded from calculation. But in the case of
Batuk v. Rudra16 it was held that that the three years must be counted, not
from the date of attainment of majority, but from the date of cessation of
minority.
16 AIR 1973 SC 1744
16 | P a g e

The minor is also entitled to the benefit of section 4, if he brings a suit after
attaining majority. Therefore, if on the last day after three years from the
date when the minor attained majority, when he ought to have filed a suit,
the court is closed, ha can file his suit on the reopening day. Section 6 does
not prevent running of limitation but only extents the period of limitation. 17
The privilege given to the minor or others under the section is not that can
be availed of by the persons in disability alone. But his guardian can also file
a suit or make an execution application within three years from the date on
which the disability of the person concerned ceases even though the normal
period of limitation of such application has expired. The plaintiff as minor or
lunatics can bring a suit during their disability and no objection can be taken
that the suit is barred by limitation. They are protected by section 6 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. The mere fact that there was a guardian on his behalf
who could have filed the suit earlier would not deprive a minor of the
protection given by the section.
However, if the disability continues up to the death of the person then as per
section 6(3) of the Limitation Act, his legal representative may institute the
suit or make the application within the same period after the death, as would
otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified in the schedule.
However, Section 9 of Limitation Act says that once time has begun to run,
no subsequent disability or inability to sue can stop its running. This means
that if even at one point of time the person is free from any legal disability
then he cannot take the advantage of section 6 and time will keeping
running for him. For example, if a person has to file a suit on 1-1-2016 till 3112-2018 and he was free from any legal disability on 1-1-2016 but he
became insane on 30-4-2016 then he cannot take the benefit of section 6 as
time has already begun for him neither his legal representative can be
allowed extra time for filing the suit.
17 Amar Chand v. UOI 1973. SCC 115
17 | P a g e

For example, A purchases goods on credit from B, with no time limit fixed for
repayment. In this case the time of limitation starts running as soon as the
goods are purchased. In case B becomes insane, still the time will not stop
running and if the suit is not filed within three years of purchasing the goods,
the same will be time barred.
So, section 6 applies only to the cases of initial and not to subsequent
disability. Further it does not provide for a fresh starting point of limitation
rather the person under disability is only entitled to an extension of time
counting from the cessation of his disability.

18 | P a g e

Conclusion

Common law legal system might have a statute, for example, limiting the
time for prosecution of crimes designated as misdemeanors to two years
after the offense occurred. Under such a statute, if a person is discovered to
have committed a misdemeanor three years ago, the time has expired for
the prosecution of the misdemeanor. While on one hand it may seem unfair
to forbid prosecution of crimes that law enforcement can now prove to the
standard required by law (cf., e.g., Beyond a reasonable doubt, Clear and
convincing evidence, and Preponderance of the evidence), the purpose of a
statute of limitations or its equivalent is to ensure that the possibility of
punishment for an act committed sufficiently long ago cannot give rise to
either a person's incarceration or the criminal justice system's activation. In
short, unless the crime is exceptionally heinous in nature, social justice as
enacted through law has compromised that lesser crimes from long ago are
best let be rather than distract attention from contemporary serious crimes.
Thus under Limitation Act , 1963, if the person is a minor or under a legal
disability, when the right to sue starts, than the time of limitation shall start
running only when the person becomes major or the disability ceases to
exist. However for certain suits, the limitation cannot extend for more than
three years, after the cessation of disability or attaining majority. For
example, A lends money to B with a condition that the money would be
repaid after two months. The time limitation will start running only after two
months of the date of lending. After one and half month A becomes insane,
which insanity continues for twelve years. The time shall start running only
after twelve years. In a suit for redemption or foreclosure of mortgage if the
limitation of 30 years expired during the period of insanity of the plaintiff, the

19 | P a g e

maximum limitation which can be allowed to him after cessation of the

disability would be three years. (Sections 6, 7 & 8).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOK SOURCES:

Takwani C.K, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963; Eastern Book

Company, Lucknow, 2015.

Mulla; The Code of Civil Procedure Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Publications (17th edn.), 2007.

Bare Act, The Code of Civil Procedure Code 1908, Universal

Publications, 2015.
Bare Act, The Limitation Act,1963, Universal Publications, 2007

WEB SOURCES:

http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/effect-of-

disability-on-limitation-period-contract-law-essay.php
http://indiankanoon.org/
http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/effect-of-

disability-on-limitation-period-contract-law-essay.php
http://admis.hp.nic.in/himpol/Citizen/LawLib/C164.htm#B6
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/condonation-of-delay-

and-law-of-limitation-543-1.html
http://www.shareyouressays.com/119347/what-do-you-mean-by-legaldisability-the-limitation-act

20 | P a g e