UNIT 5

Q: EFFECTS OF
Section 16 in The Limitation Act, 1963
16. Effect of death on or before the accrual of the right to sue.—
(1) Where a person who would, if he were living, have a right to institute a
suit or make an application dies before the right accrues, or where a right
to institute a suit or make an application accrues only on the death of a
person, the period of limitation shall be computed from the time when
there is a legal representative of the deceased capable of instituting such
suit or making such application.
(2) Where a person against whom, if he were living, a right to institute a
suit or make an application would have accrued dies before the right
accrues, or where a right to institute a suit or make an application against
any person accrues on the death of such person, the period of limitation
shall be computed from the time when there is a legal representative of
the deceased against whom the plaintiff may institute such suit or make
such application.
(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) applies to suits to enforce
rights of pre-emption or to suits for the possession of immovable property
or of a hereditary office.

Section 17 in The Limitation Act, 1963

17. Effect of fraud or mistake.—
(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of
limitation is prescribed by this Act,—
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or
respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is
founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or
applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of
limitation shall not begin to run until plaintiff or applicant has discovered
the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have
discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or
the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or
compelling its production: Provided that nothing in this section shall enable
any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce
any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property
which—
(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a
person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the
purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been
committed, or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration
subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a
person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had
been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable
consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did
not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the
document had been concealed.
(2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the
execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation, the court
may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of
the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order:
Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of
the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be.

Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963

18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing.—
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit of
application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of
liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed
by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any
person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of
limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was
so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral
evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its
contents shall not be received. Explanation.—For the purposes of this
section,—
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the
exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment,
delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied
by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a
claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to
the property or right;
(b) the word “signed” means signed either personally or by an agent duly
authorised in this behalf; and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be
deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.

Q: What are the essential requisites of a valid acknowledgment? (The

Limitation Act, 1963)
1. Acknowledgment must be made before the expiration of the period of
limitation:
In other words the acknowledgment must be made after the period of
limitation has begun to run and while it is actually running. The expression
“period prescribed” does not refer exclusively to the period prescribed by
the first schedule to the Limitation Act.
The expression will include any period prescribed by the Act, whether in
the body of the Act or in the first schedule. Thus, an acknowledgment may
be made before the expiry of the period of limitation as extended by the
operation of section 14 of the Limitation Act. [See Kamla Prasad v. Gulzari
Lai, 1954 A.L.J. 712 (F.B.)].
 2. Acknowledgment of liability must be in writing:
Hence an oral acknowledgment is not sufficient. Similarly, a mere payment
of a sum of money towards the debt is not sufficient under the section
although such payment may be intended as an acknowledgment of the
debt.
3. Acknowledgment must be signed by the person making the
acknowledgment or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf:
An acknowledgment not so signed will not be sufficient for the purpose of
this section. Thus, a telegram cannot constitute a sufficient
acknowledgment under this section as telegrams are not signed by the
parties sending them.
Signature of an agent acknowledging the debt will not do unless the agent
is duly authorised to make such an acknowledgment. A general authority is
of no avail. A special authority to acknowledge such debt is necessary.
4. Acknowledgment must be made by the party against whom any
property or right is claimed, or by some person through home he derives
title or liability:
It is sufficient under section 18, if the acknowledgment has been made by a
person against whom the right is claimed in the suit. It is not necessary that
at the time when the acknowledgment is made, such person must have an
interest in the property in respect of which the acknowledgment is given.
An auction purchase derives his title from the judgment debtor. Hence, if
the judgment-debtor makes an acknowledgment of liability in respect of a
mortgage on property, the acknowledgment will be binding on the auction
purchaser.
5. Acknowledgment must be in respect of particular property or right
claimed in the suit or application:
An acknowledgment of liability under this section must be in respect of the
particular property or right claimed in the suit. In other words, unless it is
shown that the right, acknowledged is identical with the right claimed in
the suit, the section will not apply.
Thus, where the defendant owes several debts to the plaintiff and
acknowledges his liability in respect of a debt and as it is not possible to
identify the debt acknowledged with the claimed in the suit, the
acknowledgment will be ineffective under the section.
An acknowledgment of a barred debt cannot give a fresh period of
limitation in favour of a creditor because one of the essential conditions of
a valid acknowledgment is that the acknowledgment must be made before
the expiration of the period of limitation.

Q: ACQUITION OF OWNERSHIP BY POSSESSION

S 25 Acquisition of easement by prescription
The following conditions must be satisfied for the acquisition of right to
easement:
a) In the case of access and use of light or air to and for any building: that
they have been enjoyed therewith-
1)Peaceably
2) as an easement,
3) as of right,
4) without interruption,
5) for 20 years(or in case of government property for 30 years).
b) in the case of any way,or watercourse or the use of any water or any
other easement: that it has been enjoyed therewith-
1) Peaceably,
2) openly,
3) by any person claiming title thereto,
4)as an easement,
5) of right,
6) without interruption,
7) for 20 years(or in case of government property for 30 years).
S 27 EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY
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.
The limitation act lays down a rule of substantive law in S 27. It declares
that after lapse of period provided by this enactment, the right itself is
gone and title cease to exist, and not merely the remedy. If an owner,
whose property is encroached upon,suffers his right to be barred by law of
limitation,the practical effect is the extinction of his title in favour of the
party in possession.It is utmost consequence in India that the
security,which long possession affords should not weakened.
Under this section not only the ownership of one person is
extinguished,but an absolute ownership is also acquired by other person in
adverse possession. Twelve year's adverse possession of land by
wrong-doer not only bars the remedy and extinguishes the title of the
rightful owner, but confers a good title upon the wrong-doer.
Essentials of adverse possession
The following are the essentials of adverse possession:-
1) Defendant must be in actual possession.
2) Possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in the extent
to show that it is adverse on the owner. The possession must be open,
notorious,actual,exclusive and adverse.
3) There must be an intention to hold the property.
4) Possession can not be adverse if its commencement can be referred to a
lawful title.
The law of prescription has twofold function:
1) It extinguishes rights and remedies.
2) It creates new titles. In the former character, it is termed as extinctive
prescription; in the latter, it is called acquisitive prescription.

Q: Rules Relating To Legal Disability In Limitation Act

Section 6
The rule relating to minor is that the time should not run against a minor.
Provision for the fresh starting point of limitation is not provided under this
section. This ensures that an individual with an impairment can get an
extension of time before the expiry of the period written in the Schedule
calculated from the end of disability subject to the ceiling provided under
Section 8.[8]

Insane, minors and idiots are exempted under Section 6 to file a suit or an
application for the execution of the order in the time prescribed in the law.
They are allowed to file a suit or an application when their disability has
ceased and counting of the period starts from the day their disability came
to an end.
1. Idiots, minors and insane are under the purview of disability.
2. This section applies when a suit brought by a disabled person and not
against the disabled person.
3. The disability must occur at the time when the period of limitation is
to be taken into consideration.
4. Suit or an application for the execution of the order should in question
at the time of the proceeding.
5. The limitation period should be mentioned in the third column of the
schedule to the Limitation Act for the proceedings.
Rules Pertaining To Legal Disability
According to Order 8 of Rule 5(1) of the CPC, it has been specified that if a
particular charge has not been clearly rejected or not acknowledged by the
defendant, it must be expressly admitted, except in respect of persons with
legal disabilities.[42]
Section 6(3) of the Limitation Act of 1963 empowers legal representatives
to bring an action after the death of a person with a legal disability,[43] and
that clause is enabled by Order 22 of Rule 3 (1) of the CPC that allows legal
representatives of a deceased plaintiff party to a suit.[44]
According to Rule 4A of Order 22, the court can appoint a deputy general
or an officer of the court as it deems fit to represent the estate of the
deceased person, in the event that no legal representatives remain.[45]
Under Rule 1(1) of Order 23 of the CPC, an action in respect of which the
applicant is a minor or any other person to whom Rule 1 to 14 of Order 31
applies can be withdrawn only after the court has been satisfied, as
explained in Rule 3 of Order 23, on the grounds of a formal defect or the
existence of grounds for filing a fresh suit. In the case of Joannala Sura
Reddy v. Tiyyagura Srinivasa[46], it was reported that no fresh suit could be
brought if the previous suit had not been withdrawn after the court had
given its consent pursuant to Rules 1 and 3 of Order 23.
In the case of Vidya Wat v. Hans Raj[47], pursuant to Rule 12 of Order 32
of the CPC, which deals with cases filed by minors for them to obtain a
majority, it was claimed that, pursuant to the particular provision referred
to above, no dismissal of the case is appropriate in the event that the
minor wishes not to pursue the case after obtaining a majority.
Darshan Singh v. Gurdev Singh[48]: