Landmark Judgments of Limitation Act, 1963
The 15 leading Limitation Act, 1963 cases — each with a full brief (facts, issues, held, ratio). Verified against the original judgment. Free to read.
Computation, exclusions & acknowledgment (S12-19)
- Maqbul Ahmad v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh A court cannot extend or exclude limitation on equity or hardship; only the exclusions expressly enacted (e.g. S.12) may be allowed in computation.
- Khan Bahadur Shapoor Fredoom Mazda v. Durga Prosad Chamaria An acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 need not be express or admit a precise amount; an admission of a subsisting jural relationship of debtor and creditor suffices to start a fresh limitation.
- Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act; time spent bona fide prosecuting in a wrong forum is excluded.
- J. Kumaradasan Nair v. IRIC Sohan The principles underlying Sections 5 and 14 apply broadly even where the sections do not apply per se; time spent in a wrong forum due to bona fide mistake is excludable.
Bar of limitation & key articles (S3)
- Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee Section 3 obliges a court to dismiss a suit, appeal or application filed beyond the prescribed period, whether or not the opponent pleads limitation.
- Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha The law of limitation bars only the remedy and not the right; expiry of the limitation period extinguishes the right to sue but not the underlying debt or right itself.
- V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao Under Section 3 the court must dismiss a suit filed beyond limitation even if limitation is not set up as a defence by the defendant.
Condonation of delay & sufficient cause (S5)
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji A liberal, justice-oriented approach must govern Section 5; substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations when condoning delay.
- N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy Length of delay is no matter; what counts is the acceptability and bona fides of the explanation, not the number of days.
- Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. Government bodies enjoy no special indulgence; 'file kept pending due to red-tape' is not sufficient cause absent a bona fide, reasonable explanation.
- Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 'Sufficient cause' cannot cover negligence, inaction or want of bona fides; where none is shown, the court has no discretion to condone delay.
- Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy Comprehensively culls out the guiding principles for condonation: a liberal yet pragmatic approach balanced against bona fides, conduct and absence of negligence.
Adverse possession (Articles 64/65; S27)
- Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India A claimant pleading adverse possession must clearly and unequivocally plead and prove animus possidendi and the date of commencement of hostile possession; the burden lies wholly on him.
- Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan Adverse possession, though good law, is an irrational and unfair doctrine that rewards a dishonest trespasser at the cost of the true owner, and the Court urged Parliament to reconsider it.
- Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur A person who perfects title by adverse possession may use it not only as a shield but also as a sword to sue for declaration of title and to recover possession if dispossessed.
