(..21..)
LAW OF LIMITATION[1]
QUESTION BANK
- “Vigilantibus non dormantibus jura suvenient” elucidate.
- Discuss the distinction between ‘limitation’ and ‘latches’ and ‘acquiescence’.
- State the object of the law of limitation and discuss the distinction between ‘limitation’ and ‘prescription’.
SHORT NOTES
- Amendment of 1999. in C.P.C.
SYNOPSIS
- HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963-
- OBJECT OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION-
III. NATURE OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION-
- DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘LIMITATION’ AND ‘LATCHES’ AND ‘ACQUIESCENCE’-
- 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 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,’[2] 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 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 ‘LATCHES[3]’ AND ‘ACQUIESCENCE[4]’:-
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 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 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.
*****
[1] मुदत अधिनियम [अवधि अधिनियम]
[2] कायदा अपल्या अधिकारांबदृल जागरूक लोकांनाच मदत करतो, जे लोक स्वत चे अधिकारांबदृदल जागरूक नसतात अथवा झोपा काढतात त्यांना कायदा मदत कदत नाही. म्हणजेच मुदतीत कायदेशीर कारवाई करनारालाच कायदा मदत करतो.
[कानून सिर्फ उन्हीं की मदद करता है जो अपने अधिकारों के प्रति जागरूक हैं, कानून उनकी मदद नहीं करता जिन्हें अपने अधिकारों की जानकारी नहीं है या जो सो रहे हैं। यानी कानून उन्हीं की मदद करता है जो समय सीमा के भीतर कानूनी कार्रवाई करते हैं]
[3] Long inordinate delay in claiming right before Court.
[4] It other words, implied and silent approval of a thing done prejudicial to owes own interest constitutes acquiesce. मुकस्संमती [चूप बैठके सहमति]