“Law Master’s” Publication

‘Introduction’

Prof. .S. D. Bhosale

145

(..21..)

LAW OF LIMITATION

QUESTION BANK

1. “Vigilantibus non dormantibus jura suvenient” elucidate.

2. Discuss the distinction between ‘limitation’ and ‘latches’ and ‘acquiescence’.

3. State the object of the law of limitation and discuss the distinction between ‘limitation’

and ‘prescription’.

SHORT NOTES

2. Amendment of 1999. in C.P.C.

SYNOPSIS

I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963-

II. OBJECT OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION-

III. NATURE OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION-

IV. DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘LIMITATION’ AND ‘LATCHES’ AND

‘ACQUIESCENCE’-

V. DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘LIMITATION’ AND ‘PRESCRIPTION’-

I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963:-

In Hindu jurisprudence, there was no law of Limitation as such, even though we

find provisions as to the law of prescription. Smriti writers, however, laid down 10 years

period for acquiring title by prescription.

In England, the specific law of limitation came into existence by James Statute 1623.

In India, the law as to limitation came into existence through the Limitation Act of

1859. This Act was replaced by the Limitation Act of 1871. This Act was replaced by the

“Law Master’s” Publication

‘Introduction’

Prof. .S. D. Bhosale

146

Limitation Act of 1877. The Act was further replaced by the Limitation Act 1908.

Eventually, the present Limitation Act 1963 came into force by replacing the old Act of

1908. Thus, the present Limitation Act has become a complete Code (i.e. exhaustive) on

the law of limitation.

II. OBJECT OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION:-

The object of the Limitation Act is preventive and not creative. It lays down a

statutory bar for filing suits, appeals, applications etc., after laps of a certain period. The

law of limitation extinguishes certain claims and prescribes a time after the lapse of which

suits or other proceedings cannot be maintained in a court of law, or the defendant shall be

exempted from any liability. The Law of Limitation is well summarised in the Latin maxim

‘vigilant bus, non-dormintibus, Jura sub venient,’ i.e. ‘the law helps to those who are

watchful, and not to those who sleep over their rights. In other words, the object of the

Limitation Act is to quiet (settle) long possession and extinguish stale claims (demands).

The reasons for laying a bar of limitation are-

(i) The death of parties and witnesses, the loss or destruction of documents and the fading

of memory in the course of time.

(ii) Unlimited and perpetual litigation disturbs the peace of society and leads to disorder

and confusion. Hence, there is a need for certain limitations for starting litigation. A

constant fear of the judicial process and a state of suspense hamper the progress and

prosperity of a country.

(iii) There is a limit on court time; courts need to pay more attention to recent and urgent

cases than very old and stale matters. It consumes more time in court unnecessarily.

It is due to these reasons it becomes necessary to limit and restrict the possibility of

litigation.

III. NATURE OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION:-

The statute of limitation is the statute of repose, peace and justice. It is a statute of

repose in the sense that it extinguishes remote and stale demands and quiets title. It is a

statute of peace in the sense it ensures the security of rights, and it secures justice in the

sense that by the lapse of time, evidence in support of rights may have been destroyed.

Thus, the law of limitation is founded on the principle of public policy.

The Act is a complete Code (i.e. exhaustive) on the law of limitation. The courts are

not permitted to go beyond the provisions of the Act. The Act is exhaustive in respect of

all matters specially dealt in it; however, in respect of those matters not mentioned in the

Act, the Act does not apply, and there is no limitation period in respect of them. Thus, the

law does not apply to criminal proceedings.

The law of limitation bars remedy but does not destroy rights. In other words, the

“Law Master’s” Publication

‘Introduction’

Prof. .S. D. Bhosale

147

Act prescribes the period after the expiry of which a suit cannot be maintained in a court

of law, but it does not destroy the right. For example, time-barred debt cannot be recovered

through court; however, if the debtor himself pays it to the creditor, the law does not bar

such taking, or if the debtor owes different sums (loans) to the creditor and pays him a sum

of money without directing him to what debt the sum is to be appropriated; the creditor

may apply that sum to the time-barred debt also.

However, the statement seems misleading; in fact, if the remedy through court is

barred, it is as good as the right is also barred.

IV. DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘LIMITATION’ AND ‘LATCHES¹’ AND

‘ACQUIESCENCE²’:-

All these concepts are related to the extinguishment of the right of the claimant by

delay. However, there are the following differences, viz-

1) Latches have their origin in the doctrine of equality. In cases of discretionary (or equity)

relief, such as under specific performances, injunctions, etc., the court takes into

consideration the promptness or latches of the claimant while granting relief.

The basic doctrine of limitation is a ‘public policy. The law of limitation is a matter

of express and inflexible rules of law and applies independently.

Acquiescence is a waiving right by non-protest for a long time, e.g. A is in

possession of B’s landed property for a long time, and B, having knowledge of the fact,

keeps mum on the matter (and does not approach the court for evicting A), A is said to

acquired and B has lost the right over that landed property by acquiesce.

In other words, implied and silent approval of a thing done prejudicial to one’s own

interest constitutes acquiescence.

2) Acquiescence and latches may be pleaded either against the plaintiff or the defendant,

whereas the limitation can be pleaded against the plaintiff.

V. DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘LIMITATION’ AND ‘PRESCRIPTION’:-

The Indian Limitation Act deals with the law of prescription as well as with the law

of Limitation. However, there are following distinctions between these two-

1) ‘Prescription’ is the acquisition of title by possession of the property for the specified

period. However, such possession should neither be forceful nor hidden or permissive (i.e.,

by the owner's permission). The principle is that the persons who had an interest in the

property have not sought a remedy from the court and have allowed the owner’s right to

be barred.

Whereas the law of limitation limits the time after which a suit or other proceeding

¹Long inordinate delay in claiming right before Court.

²It other words, implied and silent approval of a thing done prejudicial to owes own interest constitutes acquiesce.

“Law Master’s” Publication

‘Introduction’

Prof. .S. D. Bhosale

148

cannot be maintained in a court of justice. It simply bars the judicial remedy, but it neither

affects extra-judicial remedies nor the substantial right.

2) The law of limitation is negative in its operation; in a sense, it deprives a citizen of his

right to pursue a judicial remedy, whereas the prescription is affirmative in operation; in a

sense, it confers on a person a right to the property, which he has long been possessing.

3) The law of limitation affects remedy. Therefore, it is part of adjective law, whereas the

law of prescription affects the substance of the right itself and, therefore, is a part of

substantive law.

4) A law of prescription lays down the period at the end of which not only the judicial

remedy extinguishes but a substantive right is acquired or lost, whereas the law of

limitation prescribes the time at the end of which a suit, appeal or another proceeding

cannot be maintained in a court of law.

*****