The Limitation Act, 1963 - 2 | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Section 18: Acknowledgement

• An acknowledgment, even if undated, can be proven with oral evidence regarding its signing time.
• Oral evidence of content is not admissible as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
  Requirements for a valid acknowledgment:
  • An acknowledgment can be sufficient even if it doesn't specify the exact nature of the property or right.
  • The acknowledgment can be valid even if it is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform, or enjoy.
  • The term "signed" means the acknowledgment can be signed personally or by an authorized agent.
  • An acknowledgment should not be an application for the execution of a decree or order.
  • An acknowledgment under Section 18 need not contain a promise to pay and must not be a promise to pay.
  • The acknowledgment must be unqualified to create a new cause of action and must be of an existing liability.
  • An acknowledgment must be made before the expiry of the limitation period.
  • It does not create a new debt but extends the period of limitation.
  • It must relate to a definite liability regarding the claimed right.
  • It is essential for the acknowledgment to be signed by a person with personal liability to pay.
  • An unregistered document, even if registration is mandatory, can be used to prove acknowledgment of liability.

Application to Execution Proceedings

• Section 18 does not apply to the execution of a decree.
• For a consent decree for specific performance of a contract, execution must be filed within 12 years of decree executability.

Section 19: Effect of Payment on Account of Debt or Interest on Legacy

If payment on account of a debt or interest on a legacy is made before the prescribed period expires:

• It should be made by the person liable to pay.
• It can affect the limitation period applicable to the debt or legacy.

Limitation Act, 1963

• The Limitation Act, 1963 specifies the time period within which legal proceedings must be initiated.

Payment and Limitation:

• When a payment is made by an authorized person, a new limitation period starts from the payment date.
• An acknowledgment of payment is crucial unless it involves payment of interest before January 1, 1928.
• Example: If a debtor makes a payment, it extends the limitation period for taking legal action.

Definitions and Explanations:

• Mortgaged Land: When a mortgagee receives rent or produce from the land, it counts as a payment.
• Debt Definition: Excludes money payable under a court decree or order.

Effect of Payment:

• A payment by a joint debtor can save limitation against the other debtor as well.
• Example: If one of two joint debtors makes a payment, it benefits both debtors regarding limitation.

Section 19 Details:

• Payment must be made within the limitation period to extend the limitation under Section 19.
• Proof of payment requires a written or signed acknowledgment.

Section 20 - Acknowledgment by Another Person

• In cases of disability, an agent authorized by a guardian can acknowledge or make payments.
• A written acknowledgment or payment by one party does not automatically charge others involved.
• Example: An acknowledgment or payment made by a limited owner under Hindu Law is valid against a reversionary successor.
• The term 'chargeable' in Section 20 of the Limitation Act encompasses all forms of chargeability, not solely personal liability.
• Section 20 clarifies Sections 18 and 19 without creating exceptions for those sections.
• Payment made by a guardian under Section 20 is considered as if made by an authorized agent on the guardian's behalf.

Section 21 - Effect of Substituting or Adding New plaintiff or defendant

• When a new plaintiff or defendant is added or substituted after a suit's initiation, the suit is deemed to have commenced when the new party joined.
• The court, under certain circumstances, may retroactively consider the suit to have begun on an earlier date due to a genuine mistake.
• Section 21 does not apply when a party is added or substituted due to assignment, devolution of interest, or role reversal.
• Order I Rule 10(2) CPC governs the addition of necessary and proper parties in a suit, with Section 21 of the Limitation Act applicable to necessary parties only.
• The proviso in Section 21(1) empowers the court to excuse delays in adding parties post-limitation if done in good faith with valid reasons.

Section 22 - Continuing Breaches and Torts

• In cases of continuing breach of contract or tort, a new limitation period initiates with each ongoing instance of the breach or tort.
• Section 22 of the Limitation Act delineates that a fresh limitation period starts with each moment of a continuing breach or tort.
• The section pertains specifically to continuous breaches of contracts, distinct from successive breaches.
• A 'continuing breach of contract or tort' implies that an accused's actions or inactions sustain the breach or wrongdoing.

Continuing Breach of Contract and Tort (Section 22)

• A fresh cause of action de die in diem (from day to day) arises for a continuing breach or tort, leading to new offenses daily.
• Liabilities for damages and compensation can accumulate daily for ongoing breaches of contracts or torts.
• A continuing wrong or tort creates a continuous source of injury, holding the wrongdoer responsible.
• An infringement of a trademark is considered a continuing wrong, allowing for subsequent legal actions.

Suits for Compensation (Section 23)

• Applies to acts requiring specific injury for a cause of action, with the limitation period starting from when the injury occurs.
• Section 23 is relevant to both torts and contracts, defining 'cause of action' as facts necessary to prove a claim in court.
• Benefitting from Section 23 requires proving a specific injury, including legal harm.

Computation of Time in Instruments (Section 24)

All instruments are considered to be dated according to the Gregorian calendar for the purposes of the Limitation Act.

Section 25 - Acquisition of Easement by Prescription

• When access and use of light or air to a building are peacefully enjoyed as an easement, without interruption and for twenty years, the right becomes absolute.
• If any way, watercourse, or any other easement is openly enjoyed for twenty years, the right to such easement becomes indefeasible.
• The periods of twenty years are calculated ending within two years before the lawsuit where the claim is contested.
• If the property belongs to the Government, the period is extended to thirty years.
• Interruption is not recognized unless there is a discontinuance of possession or enjoyment due to an obstruction and the claimant acquiesces to it for a year.

Section 26 - Exclusion in Favor of Reversionary of Servant Tenement

• The enjoyment of an easement is excluded from the computation of the twenty-year period if the land is held under an interest exceeding three years.
• Upon the determination of the interest, the enjoyment of the easement during that period is excluded.
• If the claim is resisted within three years after the interest ends, the enjoyment period is excluded.

Section 27 - Extinguishment of Right to Property

• When the time limit for instituting a suit for possession ends, the right to the property is extinguished.
• Unlike general laws of limitation, this law not only bars remedy but also extinguishes title.
• On extinguishment of the title, the right to the property follows possession, and the possessor may acquire title through adverse possession.

Reading Material on the Limitation Act, 1963

• Section 27 of the Limitation Act addresses the extinguishment of the right of the lawful owner when faced with a claim of adverse possession.

MadinaBegam v. Shiv Murthy Prasad Pandey, 2016 (4) JBCJ 63 SC

• In this case, the Supreme Court followed the decision in Ahmadsahab Abdul Mulla v. Bibijan, discussing the interpretation of the term "date" in Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
• The court clarified that the term "date fixed for performance" implies a specific, predetermined date in the calendar, providing a cause of action for specific performance within three years if a date is specified in the agreement.
• If no specific date is fixed, the limitation period of three years starts when the plaintiff becomes aware of the defendant's refusal to perform the agreement.

Section 29 - Savings

• Nothing in the Limitation Act affects Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
• Special or local laws prescribing different limitation periods override the schedules of the Limitation Act, except where expressly excluded.
• The Limitation Act does not apply to suits or proceedings governed by laws concerning marriage and divorce.
• Provisions like Sections 25 to 26 and the definition of "easement" in Section 2 do not apply in territories where the Indian Easements Act, 1882 is in force.
• Special laws dictate limitation periods over those in the Limitation Act, and the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act is excluded only when a Special Act explicitly excludes it.

Suryachakra Power Corporation v. Electricity Department [2016(7) Supreme 111]

• The case emphasized that in matters governed by Special Laws, the limitations provided in those laws take precedence over the Limitation Act.

Appeal under Section 125 Electricity Act 2003

• An appeal filed after 120 days under Section 125 Electricity Act 2003 cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court.
• Principle under Section 4 of the Limitation Act for exclusion of closed court periods doesn't apply.
• Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot extend the 120-day appeal period against Tribunal decisions.
• Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be applied with due diligence and good faith in prosecuting civil proceedings.

Sunil Krishna Ghosh v. Calcutta Improvement Trust [AIR 2001 Cal 199]

In this case, Article 55 of the Limitation Act applied due to the absence of a fixed time for conveyance execution.

• Continuous breach by the defendant led to the suit not being barred, invoking Section 22 of the Limitation Act.

Article 136 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act

• Article 136 of the Limitation Act 1963 sets a 12-year limitation for executing court decrees or orders.
• The decree becomes enforceable from the time it is capable of immediate execution.

Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad [2004(8) SCC 724]

• Issue: Determining the enforceability date of a decree for execution under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Doctrine of Merger

• When an appeal is made to a higher court, the decree of the lower court merges with the decree of the higher court.
• The decree of the appellate court takes precedence over the decree of the trial court, regardless of any modifications made.
• The merger of decrees occurs irrespective of whether the appellate court affirms, modifies, or reverses the trial court's decree.

Enforcement of Decrees

• The date of the decree or any subsequent order is considered the starting point for the limitation period for enforcement.
• Once an appellate forum is invoked and entertained, the suit is deemed to continue for all intents and purposes.

Mangra Dhobi v. KheduaBaraik

• In a case involving the cancellation of a sale deed, the suit was found to be barred by the law of limitation.
• The court emphasized that the right and title of the plaintiffs could not be declared until the claim for cancellation of the sale deed was decreed in their favor.
• The suit was dismissed based on the application of Article 59 of the Limitation Act by the lower appellate court.

Adverse Possession

• Under the previous law, all possession suits, whether based on ownership or prior possession, were regulated by Article 142. This applied when the plaintiff, in possession, was ousted or ceased to be in possession. If the case did not involve plaintiff's dispossession or discontinuation of possession, Article 142 did not apply.
• Suits solely based on ownership, not on dispossession or discontinuation of possession, fell under Article 144, unless covered by other Articles like 47, 136, 137, 138, 140, and 141.
• Previously, in all possession suits due to dispossession, regardless of the plaintiff's ownership, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show possession within 12 years of the suit. Under the current law, for a suit based on ownership, even if dispossession is claimed, the defendant must prove adverse possession for over 12 years. The plaintiff now only needs to establish ownership, without proving possession within 12 years.

Scope of Articles 142 and 144

• Facts: In the case of Gurbinder Singh and Another v. Lal Singh and Another (AIR 1965 SC 1553), Mst. Raj Kaur held lands under the Raja of Faridkot, passing some to her adopted son and some to the second respondent, the son of her other daughter.
• Decision: Article 142 applies when the plaintiff was initially in possession and then dispossessed by the defendant or if possession was discontinued. The first respondent was never in possession, and the second respondent's possession was through a transfer, not by succession.

Article 144

• Applies to a suit but doesn't bar the suit by time.
• Defendant must prove adverse possession for 12 years before the suit date.
• Defendant can include adverse possession from those he claims through.
• Starting point of limitation is when defendant's possession turns adverse to plaintiff.
• Definition of "defendant" in Section 2(4) emphasizes a jural relationship.

Suits on Possession and Proprietary Title
Two categories under the Act:

• Suits based on previous possession only.
• Suits based on proprietary title.
• Art. 64 for previous possession and Art. 65 for proprietary title suits.
• Time starts from different events based on the type of suit.

Reason for Changes in Articles 64 and 65

• Confusion between Art. 142 and Art. 144 led to changes.
• Art. 64 focuses on possessory title and prevents loss of property rights without adverse possession proof.
• Clarification aimed to make the law less ambiguous.

Distinction in Articles 64 and 65

• Suits under both articles must be for possession.
• Declaration of property rights isn't considered a possession suit.

Article 65 vs. Article 58

• In suits where possession is claimed as a consequence of a declaration, Article 65 applies, not Article 58.
• Suits for possession entail asking for possession as the primary relief.
• The nature of the primary relief sought determines the applicable article.
• For example, suits for pre-emption or redemption of usufructuary mortgage.

Interpreting "Suits for Possession"

• A suit for possession doesn't always mean physical possession but the property's effective possession.
• Effective possession includes actual or constructive possession, like possession through a tenant.

Distinction between Articles 64 and 65

• Suits under Article 64 are based on possessory title, while suits under Article 65 are based on proprietary title.
• Under Article 64, the plaintiff succeeds against all except the true owner based on prior possession.
• Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act allows recovery of possession within six months of dispossession.
• The defendant must prove superior title in Article 64 suits.

Requirements for Effective Possession

• An important aspect is effective possession, either actual or through a rent-paying tenant.
• Possessory title holders can defend against trespassers but must prove prior possession.
• Possessory title is inheritable, devisable, and transferable.
• Prior possessory title holds precedence over later titles.

Article 64 vs. Article 65 Distinction Continued

• Debate existed on whether Art. 142 (Art: 64) was limited to particular suits.
• Article 64 of the Limitation Act applies to suits for possession based on possessory title and dispossession by the defendant.
• Article 65 applies to suits for possession based on title, regardless of whether the plaintiff was dispossessed.

MurtiDussadhin v. Surajdeo Singh

• A case where the suit was for possession based on title without allegations of dispossession, governed by Article 144 (now Article 65).
• The plaintiff claimed possession and also sought to be put in possession if deemed dispossessed by earlier proceedings.

Kesar Singh v. Balwant Singh

• A case where the bar of limitation under Article 142 did not apply due to permissive possession.
• Adverse possession under Article 144 for over 12 years was crucial for the appellant to succeed.

Articles 64 and 65 - Key Differences

Difference IV

• Suits under Article 64 must be filed within 12 years of dispossession.
• Article 65 covers suits based on proprietary title, with the limitation period starting when defendant's possession becomes adverse.

Difference V

• In cases under Article 64, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving possession.
• Adverse Possession and Limitation Period
  • Under the new Act, the burden of proof in a possession-based title suit shifts to the defendant to demonstrate when their possession turned adverse to the plaintiff before the statutory period.
  • In cases governed by Article 65, the defendant must establish adverse possession against the plaintiff for more than the prescribed period. The onus is on the defendant in such instances.
  • Contrastingly, under the old Act, Article 142 covered all cases of dispossession and cessation of possession, necessitating the plaintiff to prove dispossession within 12 years, even if the suit was initiated by the rightful owner.
• Distinction Between Articles 64 and 65
  • Article 64 pertains solely to immovable property, while Article 65 extends to immovable property or any interest therein.
  • For Article 65 to apply, the interest in immovable property must be capable of being enjoyed through acts of ownership, enabling adverse possession.
  • Examples of such interests include the right to collect rent, occupancy tenancy rights, and rights to use specific resources on another's land.
• Definition of Adverse Possession
  • Adverse possession refers to hostile possession that either explicitly or implicitly denies the true owner's title.
  • It requires actual and exclusive possession under a claim or right consistently maintained, publicized, and extensive enough to demonstrate hostility towards the true owner.
  • To invoke adverse possession, a specific averment in the pleadings is necessary.

Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 64 and 65

• The determination of adverse possession requires proof of animus possidendi, indicating hostile intent towards the rightful owner.
• Mere possession for the specified period isn't adequate; there must be an assertion of hostile title for it to ripen into ownership.
• Permissive possession, unlike adverse possession, can be terminated by the rightful owner at any time.
• Possession lacking evidence of openness, hostility, or notoriety doesn't establish adverse possession.
• Permissive possession cannot transform into adverse possession unless there's proof of hostile title assertion for 12 years or more.

Key Points

• Adverse possession necessitates animus possidendi and hostile intent.
• Assertion of hostile title is crucial for possession to ripen into ownership.
• Permissive possession is revocable by the rightful owner at any time.
• Openness, hostility, or notoriety is essential for establishing adverse possession.
• Hostile title assertion for 12+ years is required to convert permissive possession into adverse possession.
  • Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act
  • Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act
• If a property owner is forcefully dispossessed by a trespasser:
  • The owner can file a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act without proving title.
  • Period of limitation for such suits is 6 months (Sec.6 (2) (a)).
  • After 6 months, a suit on title can be initiated within the 12-year limitation period under Art. 65.
• In cases of unlawful possession:
  • A person in unlawful possession can sue a trespasser under Section 6, but only on grounds of dispossession.
  • Such a suit can be brought against the true owner only under Section 6, not under Article 64 or 65 of the Limitation Act.
  • Section 6 (4) of the Specific Relief Act saves suits based solely on title.
• Distinction between suits under Section 6 and Article 64:
  • A suit under Article 64 can be brought by a person in unlawful possession against a trespasser without title.
  • Article 64 suits are based on previous possession and dispossession, not on strict "title" as per Section 6 (4).
• Interpretation of the term "Title" in Articles 64 and 65:
  • "Title" in Art. 64 and 65 refers narrowly to proprietary title, excluding possessory title.
  • However, legally, the term "title" can encompass both proprietary and possessory titles.
• Remedies for those who haven't used Section 6:
  • After 6 months, a suit on title can be filed by the true owner against a trespasser or a previous trespasser against a subsequent one.
  • Suits are not maintainable against the true owner.
• Situations involving eviction and subsequent suits:
  • If a trespasser is evicted by the true owner under Section 6, the true owner can sue on title under Art. 65.
  • Once a true owner obtains possession from a trespasser, the trespasser cannot sue for possession as they lack title against the true owner.

Jaldhari Mahto and Others v. Rajendra Singh and Others, AIR 1958 Pat 386
Onus in cases under Art. 142 of the Limitation Act 1908:

• The plaintiff must demonstrate superior title to possession within 12 years of the suit in cases of dispossession or discontinuance of possession.
• Where a plaintiff sues as a proprietor and the defendant claims a tenancy right, the plaintiff's paramount title presumes entitlement to hold and possess the land.

Limitation Act, 1963: Understanding Possession and Tenancy

Claim for Possession based on Title

• When a landowner seeks to regain possession and the occupant claims to be a lessee under the landowner, the landowner is not required to prove possession within 12 years.
• This principle applies broadly in cases where the defendant asserts a lease under the landowner, regardless of when the lease originated.
• Example: If a landowner sues to recover possession and the defendant claims to be a lessee, the landowner doesn't need to prove possession within 12 years.

Kalliyani v. Kaliani, 1969 KLT 362

• A plaintiff seeking property possession must demonstrate not just title but also actual possession within 12 years of the lawsuit.
• When a defendant argues a tenancy in response to a possession claim, the plaintiff's burden of proving continuous possession within 12 years may be alleviated.
• Example: If a defendant admits to being a lessee at the time of the suit, it implies the plaintiff was in constructive possession, even if the lease predates 12 years.

Suit Between Landlord and Tenant

• In cases where tenancy is claimed and proven, the lawsuit may essentially revolve around landlord-tenant relations, relieving the plaintiff from proving possession within 12 years.
• Example: If both parties acknowledge a tenancy, the focus shifts to proving the tenancy's lawful termination within 12 years prior to the suit.
• However, if tenancy is alleged but not substantiated, the usual landlord-tenant limitation principles may not apply.
• The plaintiff's success may hinge on proving rightful ownership if the alleged tenancy began within 12 years of the suit.

Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009(1)JLJ 82 (SC)

• The Supreme Court criticized the law of adverse possession for being unjust towards true owners and advantageous to dishonest possessors. It suggested the government reconsider the laws to prevent wrongful claims.

Dharampal (dead) through LRS v. Punjab Waqf Board, 2017(7) Supreme 156

• The Supreme Court clarified that a claim of adverse possession cannot be used by a plaintiff to assert ownership. The burden of proof lies on the defendant, and adverse possession requires hostile, open, and continuous possession for twelve years.

Dulal Chandra Pramanik and Another v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand, 2013(1) JCR 82 (Jhr)

• The High Court emphasized that possession during eviction proceedings does not lead to adverse possession claims. Peaceful possession during such legal actions does not establish hostile title acquisition.

Reading Material on the Limitation Act, 1963

• Supreme Court Observations in R.Hanumaiah v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department
• Court's Distinction Between Adverse Possession of Private and Government Property
• Importance of Preventing Conversion of Public Property into Private Property

Civil Courts and Suits Against the Government

• Courts' Duty to Ensure Protection of Government Properties
• Requirements for Declaration of Title Against the Government
• Evidence Needed for Claiming Adverse Possession Against the Government

D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka

• Elements of Adverse Possession: Actual and Continuous Possession, Necessary Animus
• Importance of Hostile Title Claim in Adverse Possession

S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina

• Requirements for Adverse Possession: Continuity, Publicity, and Extent
• The Need for a Clear Starting Point for Limitation in Adverse Possession

P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy

• Classical Requirement of Adverse Possession: Without Force, Without Secrecy, Without Permission
• Establishing Adverse Possession Against Another Co-Heir

Ouster of Non-Possessing Co-heirs

• When one co-heir is in possession of properties, it is considered as possession on behalf of all co-heirs. The possession by one co-heir cannot be considered adverse to others unless there is open hostility and exclusive possession.

Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt of India and Others, 2004 (10) SCC 779

• The legal view is that an owner is in possession until someone else intrudes. Non-use of a property does not affect ownership, but if another person asserts control over it, adverse possession may occur. To claim adverse possession, the possession must be peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile.

Dipnarayan Rai and Others v. Pundeo Rai and Others, AIR 1947 Pat 99

• In the case of co-owners, adverse possession by one co-owner is not valid unless there is a denial of title known to all co-owners. This principle applies to transferees as well, whether original co-owners or through transfer.

Mohd. Zainulabudeen v. Sayed Ahmed Mohideen and Others, AIR 1990 SC 507

Adverse possession by one co-heir against another does not prove sole possession or enjoyment of profits by one co-heir.

Limitation Act, 1963

• Presumption of Joint Title
  • When one co-heir is in possession of properties, it is presumed based on joint title.
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that a co-heir in possession cannot make their possession adverse to the other co-heir by hostile actions alone.
  • Case law example: In Shah Ahmad Mohiuddinkmisulqudari, the Supreme Court ruled that possession of one co-owner is deemed as possession of all co-owners unless proven otherwise.
• Adverse Possession by Co-Sharers
  • In cases of adverse possession claims by a co-sharer, the key consideration is the intent of the parties involved.
  • The intention is evaluated based on their actions, omissions, and conduct regarding the property.
  • If a co-sharer in possession treats the property exclusively as their own without acknowledging the rights of other co-sharers, and the others do not challenge this for over 12 years, adverse possession may be established.
  • Adverse possession requires an intent to claim adversely along with actions that give the opposing party a cause of action.
  • It's crucial to note that limitation does not begin unless the person can legally assert their title through action.
• Resistance to Right of Partition
  • Adverse possession can resist a right to partition if there has been ouster for the required 12-year period, coupled with the knowledge of the ousted party.
  • Merely long possession without intention to possess adversely and without the knowledge of the plaintiff does not lead to acquisition of title by the possessor.
  • Establishing adverse possession necessitates demonstrating intention to possess adversely and actions that give rise to a cause of action.

Computation of Period of Limitation

• Part III Section 12-24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the calculation of the period of limitation, either by excluding time or postponing the starting point of limitation.

Exclusion of Time in Computing Period of Limitation

Sections 12-15 of the Limitation Act exclude various periods, such as:

• The day when the limitation period begins.
• The day when a judgment/order/award is declared.
• Time taken to obtain copies of decrees/orders/awards/sentences.
• Time spent on an application to sue as an indigent person.
• Time spent in good faith proceedings in a court lacking jurisdiction.
• Time during which a stay or injunction is in effect.
• Time spent on giving notice or obtaining required consent/sanction.
• Time with a receiver or liquidator appointed.
• Time during proceedings to set aside a sale (in a possession suit).
• Time when the defendant is out of India.

Postponement of Limitation

Sections 16-23 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deal with the postponement of limitation until a completed cause of action exists:

• Limitation doesn't start until there's a party who can sue or be sued.
• In cases of fraud or mistake, limitation starts upon discovery.
• For rights or liabilities, limitation begins from the written acknowledgment date.
• Regarding debts, payment triggers a new period of limitation.