There are two major considerations on which the Doctrine of Limitation and Prescription is based:
- Firstly, rights which are not exercised for a long time are considered non-existent.
- Secondly, property rights and general legal rights should not remain in constant uncertainty, doubt, and suspense.
The main objective of limiting legal action is to give effect to the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, meaning it is in the State’s interest to limit litigation. This prevents disturbance or deprivation of what has been acquired by justice, long enjoyment, or through the inaction or negligence of others.
The concept of limitation restricts controversies to a fixed period of time, acknowledging that legal disputes must not persist indefinitely. This statutory restriction allows enforcement of existing rights within a specific timeframe. It neither creates a right nor defines a cause of action but prescribes a limited window to seek a legal remedy.
The Limitation Act, 1963 serves a preventive purpose, giving finality to legal matters by barring suits after a specific time, rather than eliminating legal rights. Its aim is not to infringe on the rights of aggrieved persons but to enhance public welfare by ensuring timely legal proceedings.
“The object of the Statutes of Limitation is to compel a person to exercise his rights of action within a reasonable time and to discourage stale, fake, or fraudulent claims.”
– B.B. & D. Mfg. Co. v. ESI Corporation, AIR 1972 SC 1935
This ruling identified two aspects of limitation laws:
- Some statutes extinguish the right itself if the action is not taken in time (affecting substantive rights).
- Others only bar the remedy, leaving the right intact as a moral or contractual obligation (procedural).
“The Limitation Act is based upon public policy for fixing a lifespan for a legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare.”
– Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123
The Law of Limitation is considered an adjective law (lex fori), focusing on procedural rules without creating or defining substantive rights. The remedy is available only for a limited time, and not thereafter.
The rules are intended to:
- Prevent dilatory tactics by plaintiffs.
- Encourage prompt legal action within legislated timelines.
Even after limitation bars a legal remedy, the underlying right may still exist. For example, a debtor can voluntarily repay a time-barred debt, and cannot later demand its return citing limitation.
The Limitation Act generally applies to suits filed by plaintiffs. It does not bar a defendant from asserting a right in defense, even if it would be time-barred in a direct claim. However, this principle does not apply to set-offs and counterclaims, which are treated as separate suits and follow their own limitation rules.
The Limitation Act, 1963
This Act replaced the Limitation Act, 1859. It was enacted on October 5, 1963, and came into force on January 1, 1964. Its purpose is to consolidate and amend laws related to the limitation of suits and legal proceedings.
Salient Features of the Limitation Act
The Act contains 32 sections and 137 articles, divided into ten parts:
- Accounts
- Contracts
- Declarations
- Decrees and Instruments
- Immovable Property
- Movable Property
- Torts
- Trusts and Trust Property
- Miscellaneous Matters
- Suits with No Prescribed Period
There is no uniform limitation period across all suits. For instance:
- The period for suits by mortgagors for redemption or recovery of mortgaged immovable property has been reduced from 60 to 30 years.
- A 12-year limitation period applies to suits involving immovable property, trusts, and endowments.
- A 3-year limitation period applies to suits involving contracts, accounts, declarations, decrees, instruments, and movable property.
- Other suits may have limitation periods ranging from 1 to 3 years, depending on the matter.
