INTRODUCTION
The Law of Limitation rests on the two pillars of ‘Vigilantibus Non Dormentibus Jura Subvenuient’ and ‘Interest Republicae ut sit Finis Litium’. While the former asserts that the Courts aid only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, the latter posits that it is in the interest of the State that litigation should be limited to ensure certainty, peace and justice in the legal system. Considering that the Law of Limitation holds an indispensable position, it is necessary to understand the concept, especially concerning Legal Disability.
STATUTORY POSITION OF LEGAL DISABILITY UNDER THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963
The concept of Legal Disability is an exception to the general rule of dismissing suits, appeals and applications that are filed beyond the limitation period[1]. Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 discusses the remedy wherein the plaintiff is suffering from some kind of legal disability that thwarts them from exercising their rights. If a strict application of the rule under Section 3 is undertaken, individuals suffering from it may be disadvantaged[2]. Section 6 provides that if the person entitled to file a suit or execution petition is a minor, insane or an idiot, at the time from which the limitation period is to be considered (the day after the cause of action arises[3]), then the person is provided the same limitation period that they would have had otherwise. The Limitation period is reckoned only after the legal disability ceases[4], providing reprieve.
CONCEPT OF LEGAL DISABILITY UNDER THE LIMITATION ACT 1963
The concept of Legal Disability under the Act protects minors, those suffering from insanity and idiocy.
Minority: Under the Indian Majority Act 1875, a person is said to reach the age of majority upon completing the age of 18 and the age of 21 if they are under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. If at the time of filing the suit, the plaintiff is a minor, and his legal representatives fail to institute the same on his behalf, then upon reaching the age of majority, the limitation period starts to run. This secures the rights of the minor and ensures their access to justice and independence from being barred by time.
In the case of Jai Kisan v Kalicharan[5], An execution petition had been filed by the minor brother. Upon attaining majority, the respondent (Kalicharan) filed the execution petition. It was contended that since the minor’s brother could have acted on his behalf, the protection under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not available. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the respondent is not precluded from the privilege available under Section 6 merely because of the existence of a guardian[6].
Insanity: If at the time of initiating the suit, the plaintiff suffers from insanity, they are afforded the protection under Section 6, till the insanity ceases. In Devgonda Raygonda v. Shamgonda Raygonda[7], It was contended that the suit was not barred as the appellant suffered from lunacy. The Court rejected the contention as the lunacy could not be conclusively proved.
Idiocy: In the Landmark decision of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh[8], the Supreme Court defined that “An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals; and those are said to be idiots who cannot count twenty, or tell the days of the week, or who do not know their fathers or mothers, or the like,[9]”
If the individual is suffering from two disabilities simultaneously at the onset of the limitation period, then the same will be reckoned only after both disabilities cease[10]. The Act also envisages a situation wherein if such legal disability continues till the death of the person entitled to file the suit or execution petition, the legal representatives of the deceased are given the same period that the deceased would have been allotted[11]. Further, the Act covers situations wherein the legal representatives suffer from a legal disability and provides them with benefits under Sections 6(1) and 6(2)[12].
Finally, Section 6(5) of the Act provides the limitation period to the legal representative of a person, who was legally disabled and then died after cessation of such disability, had they been alive.
Sections 7, 8, and 9 are ancillary to the principle enshrined under Section 6 of the Act.
Section 7 envisages two courses of action in cases where the substantive right is joint (that is the action has to be brought by all unless agreed otherwise) and one or more of the persons entitled to file a suit or an execution petition for the same, are legally disabled.
If one person is eligible to provide a valid discharge on behalf of all (such as the position of a Karta in an Undivided Hindu Family) then the limitation period runs against all of them. If there is no such person, then the limitation period will not run against any of them until one of them becomes eligible to give a discharge on behalf of the others without their concurrence or until the legal disability ceases.
Section 8 limits the protection afforded under Sections 6 and 7 if the limitation period mentioned in the Act exceeds three years as well as suits to enforce pre-emption rights.
In the case of Ponnama Pillai v Padmanabhan Channar[13], the plaintiffs, members of a joint family, filed a suit for the recovery of their joint family property. At the time of the sale of said property, they were minors. However, the elder brother attained the age of majority and became capable of giving a discharge on behalf of his brother. The majority held that the disability referred to in section 8 is the inability of any member of the group to provide a valid discharge on behalf of others. Thus, once the elder brother attained majority, the suit had to be filed within the expiry of three years from the date of attaining majority.
In the case of Kolandavel v Chinnapan[14], It was held that a person under disability may institute a suit within the same period after the disability has ceased as he would otherwise have been allowed under Schedule I, but subject to the proviso that the time shall not, in any case, be extended for more than three years from the cessation of the disability.
In Kammili Venkaratnam v Kammili Krishna Murthy[15], the decree-holder died, leaving behind a minor sole-surviving heir. The question before the Court was whether the protection under Section 6[16] would be available to the minor. The Court held that the limitation period runs from the date of decree and by applying Section 9, once limitation begins to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or application stops it.[17] When the execution petition was filed, the decree-holder was alive and time began to run from that date and the subsequent disability of the decree-holder’s legal representative would not prevent the running of time.
RE-CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF ‘LEGAL DISABILITY’
The essence of the protection afforded under Section 6 is to not place a legally disabled person’s rights in the hands of their guardian, legal representatives or a power of attorney, and allow them to take recourse independently after the cessation of the disability.
The concept of legal disability under the Limitation Act 1963 requires expansion.
Vegetative State/Physical Disability: A person who is in a persistent vegetative state or permanent or temporary total disability should be afforded protection under Section 6 as they would be denied their legal remedies if complete reliance is placed on their legal representatives.
Prisoners: A prisoner is precluded from exercising their right to sue by their imprisonment. While they may be deprived of their personal liberty, they are entitled to their other constitutional and statutory rights[18]. Given the procedural complexities that are involved in exercising one’s rights from prison (such as the right to property), prisoners should be afforded leniency in the computation of the limitation period. This is crucial considering the vast number of under-trial prisoners in India.
Rural and Backward Communities: Forging an inclusive legal system requires the synchronised applicability of laws to all. Due to systemic inequalities, One cannot be denied their rightful legal claims merely because they lacked knowledge of the appropriate remedies before the expiry of the limitation period. Rural and Backward communities require ease of accessibility to the judicial system and provisions to this effect can deliver actual results.
CONCLUSION
On the whole, the protection embodied under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides undeniable benefits to the legally incapacitated with considerable nuance and balance. It serves as an iron wall preventing the defeat of valid claims to procedure. Legal disability is an exception to the bar of limitation[19] under section 3 and prevents the ill effects of its strict application. It ensures that the rightful claims of the legally disabled are not lost to time, and provides leeway to present the same before the court. However, such protection has to be reconsidered regularly, to realise the object of the legislation in light of new circumstances.
Author(s) Name: Akshaya P.A. (The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University School of Excellence in Law)
References-
[1] The Limitation Act 1963, s 3
[2] M.P.Steel Corpn v. CCE, (2015) 7 SCC 58
[3] The Limitation Act, 1963, s 12(1)
[4] M.P.Steel Corpn v. CCE, (2015) 7 SCC 58
[5] Jai Kisan v Kalicharan ILR 1957 MP 3
[6] Dr S.R. Myeneni, Law of Limitation, (1st edn, Asia Law House 2010)
[7] Devgonda Raygonda v Shamgonda Raygonda AIR 1992 Bombay 189
[8] Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 109
[9] Ibid
[10] The Limitation Act 1963, s 6(2)
[11] The Limitation Act 1963, s 6(3)
[12] The Limitation Act 1963, s 6(4)
[13] Ponnama Pillai v Padmanabhan Channar AIR 1969 KER 163
[14] Kolandavel v Chinnapan AIR 1965 Mad 541
[15] Kammili Venkaratnam v Kammili Krishna Murthy AAO No 04/1975
[16] The Limitation Act 1963, s 6
[17] The Limitation Act 1963, s 9
[18] Taiwo Ajala, ‘Legal Capacity of Prisoners to Sue or be Sued: A Case for Expanding the Scope of Legal Disability’ (2020) Journal of Public and Private Law <https://ezenwaohaetorc.org/journals/index.php/UNIZIKJPPL/article/download/1061/1063#:~:text=Prisoners%20need%20access%20to%20courts,may%20own%20in%20the%20future.> accessed 5 July 2024
[19] The Limitation Act 1963, s 3
