LEGAL DISABILITY AND ITS EFFECT ON CPC WITH REFRENCE TO

LIMITATION ACT

6.4 Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Submitted To:

Prof. (Dr.) Subhash Chandra Singh

Adjunct Professor of Law

Submitted by:

YASH GUPTA

SM0117061

3rd Year VIth Semester

National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam

1
 Table of Contents
TABLE OF CASES ...................................................................................................................................... 3

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................. 4

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 5

SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 6

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 7

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 7

TYPES OF LEGAL DISABILITY ............................................................................................................... 8

RULES PERTAINING TO LEGAL DISABILITY IN LIMITATION ACT ............................................. 10

Section 6 ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Scope of Section 6 with CPC .................................................................................................................. 11

Who is entitled to the benefit of S. 6....................................................................................................... 11

Computation of period ............................................................................................................................ 12

Duty of litigant to plead minority ........................................................................................................... 12

Accrual of cause of action....................................................................................................................... 13

Combination with other Section 3, 7, 8, 9 .............................................................................................. 14

Section 8 ................................................................................................................................................. 14

Extension ................................................................................................................................................ 15

Pre-emption suit ...................................................................................................................................... 16

RULES PERTAINING TO LEGAL DISABILITY IN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 .................... 17

RELEVANT CASE LAWS PERTAINING TO LEGAL DISABILITY ................................................... 18

RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY LAW COMMISSION .................................................................... 20

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 22

2
 TABLE OF CASES

1. S.K.Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 1 SCC 131.

2. Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 2251.
3. Bholanath v. Sayedatunnisia, AIR 1986 All 182.
4. Joannala Sura Reddy v. Tiyyagura Srinivasa, AIR 1964 Bom 342.
5. Vidya Wat v. Hans Raj, AIR 1954 SC 349.
6. Darshan Singh v. Gurdev Singh, J., AIR 1975 Mad 19.
7. Udhavji Anandji Ladha and Ors. v. Bapudas Ramdas Darbar, AIR 1965 A.P. 215.
8. Lalchand Dhanalal v. Dharamchand and Ors, AIR 1939 Rang 432.
9. Bapu Tatya Desai vs Bala Raojee Desai, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 693.
10. Smt. Usha Rani Banerjee & Ors. v. Premier Insurance Company Ltd, (1984) 1 SCC
137.
11. T. Kunhammad and Ors. v. M. Narayanan Nambudiri's Son, AIR 1965 A.P. 52.

3
 ABSTRACT

The basic aim and objective of this paper is to understand the concept of legal disability under
limitation law. The paper also tries to establish a fair idea pertaining to the recent development
that has been carried out in the Indian judicial sphere through various land mark judgments
pronounced by the judiciary applying its legal mind. This paper also aims at deriving a focal
point, to inter-mingle the Constitutional and other statutory relations pertaining to this concept
and will also try to throw some light on the judicially settled principles. This write up seeks to
bring up the legal provisions regarding law of legal disability and exceptions therein enshrined
in Section 6, 7 & 8 of Limitation Act, 1963. This paper is an attempt to analyze rules relating to
the concept of legal disability. This concept is enshrined in Section 6 of the statute of Limitation
Act, 1963. This concept also extends to other sections within the same act like sections 7, 8 and
9, which play an important role in this concept. This concept can be described as some kind of
cooling off period wherein individuals or their legal representatives of any form cannot file suits
because of any legally induced disability- either insanity, idiocy or minor age. Once this
disability is over, only then can parties file suits or their legal representatives can. This legal
concept can be termed as some kind of eligibility criteria that allows/disallows parties from
contesting their legal claims. This area of law can termed to be strictly time bound and allows
concessions only when there is existence of some extra-ordinary circumstances that justifies any
corresponding extension.

4
 INTRODUCTION

The 'Law of Limitation' prescribes the time-limit for different suits within, which an aggrieved
person can approach the court for redress or justice. The suit, if filed after the exploration of
time-limit, is struck by the law of limitation. It's basically meant to protect the long and
established user and to indirectly punish persons who go into a long slumber over their rights.
Every person has to file his suit or make his application within the time prescribed under the
schedule of the Limitation Act only.

But there can be circumstances where due to his physical or mental disability he is unable to file
the suit or make an application. In such cases the law must not be the same and special privileges
and relaxation must be given to the persons undergoing legal disability.

The Limitation Act mainly helps the defendants as it bars the filing of suit or making of
application after the expiry of the limitation period. But in some cases Limitation Act even
comes to the rescue of the plaintiff also.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim and objective of this paper is to make a detailed study of the Legal Disability and its Effect on
CPC With reference to Limitation Act.

SCOPE

The scope of this paper is limited to the study of the various provisions regarding Legal Disability and its
Effect on CPC With reference to Limitation Act.

5
LITERATURE REVIEW

 C.K. Takwani, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963, 7th ed. 2013,
Eastern Book Company, Lucknow
Procedural laws prescribe the method for enforcing rights and duties. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
gives the law relating to the procedure of the courts of civil judicature. It is well acclaimed as a compact
book written in a lucid style. The commentary explains the theoretical as well as practical aspects of civil
procedure. The book provides a complete grasp and understanding of institution of suits under the Civil
Procedure Code with the help of landmark judgments and judicial decisions.

 Dr. Avtar Singh, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 2nd ed. 2009, Central Law Publications,
Allahabad-
This scholarly work by Dr. Avtar Singh provides an unparalleled coverage of Code of Civil Procedure and
is a comprehensive analysis of various legal provisions relating this Procedural Law. It discusses the
provisions relating to institution of suits in an extensive manner and gives elucidated meaning to them.

 Mulla, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 15th ed. 2012, LexisNexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur-
The book includes the latest cases, legislative amendments and current developments in the law relating to
civil procedure in India. In this book, the concept of institution of suits has been analysed, in an explicit
manner.

6
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

 What are the different types of legal disability?

 What are the various rules pertaining to legal disability in the Limitation Act?

 What are the various rules pertaining to disability in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908?

 What is the rationale for the provision of different procedures for attachment and sale of movable
and immovable properties in execution of money decrees?

 What are the recommendations made by the Law Commission in the matters pertaining to Legal
Disability?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Only descriptive style of writing has been used in this project. An attempt has been made to analyze the
reasons for different procedures for various types of legal disability in respect of CPC and the Limitation
Act.

7
 TYPES OF LEGAL DISABILITY
There are three types of legal disabilities that have been described in section 6 (1) of the
Limitation act, 19631. This include-

1. Minor
2. Insane
3. Idiot

The first of these criterions for legal disability, “minor” has to do with a person’s age. Under
Section 3 (1) of The Indian Majority Act of 18752 , a person becomes a major when he/she
completes eighteen years. This computation of age is to be done after taking into account the
following two provisos discussed in section 3 (2) -

1. The day on which the said individual is born is to be included as a whole day.
2. He/she is thus said to have become a major as and when the eighteenth anniversary of
that day commences.

The Majority Act of 1875 can be termed as a “secular “ law as it applies to all individuals
professing any religion in India .If a particular personal law states otherwise, only then can the
age of majority be considered as something else other than 18 years3 . The Majority Act though
takes into account certain situations where in a concerned court or a court of wards took
superintendence over the life and property of a minor and thus for his/her welfare appointed any
guardian before such a person attained the age of 18, in such cases it is to be observed that the
age of minority then extends till the age of 21 for the person in question4. A child in the womb is
also termed as a minor.

The second criterion for applying the bar of legal disability is that of insanity. This concept is
explained in great detail in the case of S.K.Yadav v. State of Maharashtra5 that was contested in
the Supreme Court. In this case the court dealt with the concept of insanity in our legal system at

1
The Limitation Act, 1963, Section 6.
2
The Indian Majority Act, 1875, Section 3 (1).
3
Infochangeindia.org, Who is a child, Asha Bajpai, 2007.
4
The Limitation Act, 1963, page 7.
5
S.K.Yadav V State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.509 of
2008).
8
great length. It stated that courts only recognized legal insanity and not medical insanity and that
there were substantial differences between the two. Even if insanity has been previously proved
medically or in a lower court of law, it has to be proved in the higher court. Furthermore, it is to
be noticed that no such specific tests lie to prove legal insanity. Behaviours, antecedent,
attendant and subsequent to the event, are to be taken into account while considering if a said
person is to be termed insane or not.

In the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh6 , it was said that there were four
sub-types of non-compos mentis i.e.,

 an idiot
 one made non compos by illness
 a lunatic or a mad man
 one who is drunk

Idiocy included the following characteristics which included-

 non-sane memory from birth by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals

 idiots are unable to count twenty
 tell the days of the week
 who do not know their fathers or mothers, or the like

A lunatic suffers from bouts of such attacks in between what is termed as periods of sanity ie
there are times when he can control his senses but there are occasions where he/she functions in
an erratic manner, example-epilepsy. Madness is seen as permanent. Lunacy and madness are
termed “acquired insanity” while idiocy is considered as “natural insanity” that is while a person
can turn lunatic at any time in his lifetime, a person is an idiot since his/her birth.

6
A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 768.
9
 RULES PERTAINING TO LEGAL DISABILITY IN LIMITATION ACT
Section 6 -

General Principle:

The general principle of law is that time does not run against a minor. This section does not
provide for a fresh starting point of limitation. It means that the person under disability is entitled
to an extension of time till the expiry of the period mentioned in the Schedule calculated from
the cessation of disability (subject to the limit mentioned in S.8)7.

Section 6 excuses an insane person, minor and idiot to file suit or make an application for the
execution of a decree within the time prescribed by law and enables him to file the suit or make
an application after the disability has ceased, counting the period of time from the date on which
the disability ceased.

1. The disability is continued only to minority, insanity and idiocy.

2. This section is applicable to suits etc., brought by and not against persons under
disability.

3. The disability must exist at the time from which the period of limitation is to be
reckoned.

4. The proceeding in question must be a suit or an application for the execution of a decree.

5. The period of limitation for the proceeding must be specified in third column of the
schedule to Limitation Act.

7
Ponnamma Pilai v. Padmanabhan channar, A.I.R. 1969 Ker. 163.
10
Scope of Section 6 with CPC

The section will not grant an indulgence to a minor entitled to prefer an appeal, it provides only
for suit or application for execution of decree.

Section 6 not cover a case of an application under order 21, Rule 90,of CPC 1908 and through
the same court set aside a sale held in execution in the case Bholanath v. Sayedatunnisia8. Nor it
does apply to an application for the readmission of an appeal under Order 41 rule 10, of CPC.9 It
is not applicable for bringing on record legal representative of a deceased party. 10 An application
to obtain a final decree for sale in mortgage suit is not an application for execution of the
preliminary decree for sale. Section 6 does not apply to such an application.11Similarly an
application for supplementary decree under order 34, rule 6, is not an application for execution
and does not fall within the provision of this section12.

But claim for under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act 1939 is in the nature of a suit under
CPC, so it would attract the provision of section 6 of limitation Act.

Who is entitled to the benefit of S. 6

It is only a person “entitled to the suit” that can claim benefit of s. 6. A person who was not
entitled to sue or apply at the commencement of the limitation but becomes entitled to do so later
cannot get benefit of S. 613.

Section 6 is applicable to the case where there is either one plaintiff or applicant and he is a
minor or an idiot or insane or where there are several plaintiffs or defendants and they all labor
under the disability or disabilities mentioned in S. 614. Where after the limitation has started
running against one person, another person becomes entitled to sue on the same cause of action,

8
A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 55.
9
Sonubhai v. Shivaji Rao, 45 Bom 648.
10
Shila Wanti v. Kishore Chand, A.I.R. 1933 Cal. 508.
11
Govindnaik v. Bassawannewa A.I.R. 1941 Bom 203.
12
Kondkar Mahomed v. Chandra Kumar 56 Cal. 1117.
13
Bailchon Karan v. Basant Kumari Naik, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 876.
14
Zafir v. Amiruddin , A.I.R. 1963 Pat.108.
11
s. 6 is not attracted and there is no fresh starting point of limitation and the disability of the latter
at the time when he becomes entitled to sue is no ground for extending the limitation under s. 615.

Computation of period

In computing the period of limitation for a minor, the date on which he attains majority must be
excluded from calculation16. The minor, in bringing a suit after attaining majority, is also entitled
to the benefit of s. 4. Therefore, if on the last day after three years from the date when the minor
attained majority he ought to have filed a suit but the court is closed, he can file his suit on the
reopening day.17 Section 6 does not prevent running of limitation but only extends the period of
limitation.18

The privilege given to the minors or others under the section is not one that can be availed of by
the persons in disability alone. But his guardian or next friend can also bring a suit or make an
execution application within three years from the date on which the disability of the person
concerned ceases, even though the ordinary period of limitation for such suit or application has
expired19. The plaintiffs as minor or lunatics can bring a suit during disability and no objection
can be taken that the suit is barred by limitation. They are protected by s. 6. The mere fact that
there was a guardian on his behalf who could have filed the suit earlier would not deprive a
minor of the protection given by the section20.

Duty of litigant to plead minority

If the question of minority is not raised by a litigant or on his behalf the court is not bound to
consider it ex proprio motu. Even the fact that The petitioner is described in the heading of the
application as a minor represented by a guardian is not sufficient to entitle him to the benefit of
this section, nor is it sufficient to throw upon the court the duty of protecting his interests by
raising a point of this kind on his behalf. The omission on the part of the court to consider the
question of minority of the petitioner does not amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction so as to

15
Abed hossain v. Abdul Rahman, I.L.R. (1935)63, Cal. 92.
16
Shah Hiralal v. Shah Fulchand, A.I.R. 1956 Sau 90.
17
I.S. Mohammad v. N.A.N. Mohammad, A.I.R. 1984 Guj. 126.
18
Ponnamma Pilai v. Padmanabhan channar A.I.R. 1969 Ker. 163 (FB).
19
Tulsiram v. Kishori Prasad, A.I.R. 1962 Pat 189.
20
Electricity Board of UP v. Sheo Nath Singh, A.I.R. 1976 All. 118.
12
invoke the revisional power of the High Court under s. 115 CPC21. The point about the minority
of a party for the purpose of calling in aid the provisions of this section cannot be raised for the
first time in second appeal22.

The person claiming disability has the onus to prove satisfactorily that he has come within three
years of attainment of majority23.

Accrual of cause of action

Section 6 only applies when the disability is in existence at the time when the limitation begins
to run, but time is not saved where disability does not exist at the point on which limitation
begins to run24. This section requires that the plaintiff must have been a minor when the cause of
action first accrued, and the cause of action must have accrued to the minor himself, otherwise he
cannot claim any exemption under this section. Therefore, if the cause of action accrued to the
minor’s father, the minor son cannot, after his father’s death, wait till he attains majority25.
Similarly, if the cause of action had accrued before his birth, the minor cannot, on coming of age
avail himself of the benefit of this section. The minor must have been in existence at the time
when the cause of action accrued26.

If the suit is brought within three years of the attainment of the first plaintiff, the suit is within
time in respect of the other plaintiff who were born after the date of alienation, even though in
their case the ordinary period of limitation has run out; this is so because the younger brothers
have no independent right to sue, but their right is derived from their elder brother’s capacity to
sue; the time within which they can sue is co-existence with the time allowed to the elder
brother27.

21
Panchu Mandal v. Sheikh Isaf, 17 CWN 667.
22
Harikumar v. Udeyram, A.I.R. 1972 Bom. 262.
23
Gopi Nath v. Satish Chandra, A.I.R. 1962 All. 53.
24
Firm Dunichand v. Kuldip Singh, A.I.R. 1935 Lah 144.
25
Kasim v sip A.I.R. 1956 Sau 20.
26
Supra Note 13.
27
Jowala v. Sant Singh, A.I.R. 1932 Lah. 605.
13
Combination with other Section 3, 7, 8, 9

A major part of rules pertaining to legal disability are enshrined in its parent act, which is that of
Limitation Act, especially sections 6,7 and 9 that describe with a great deal of detail the different
aspects of technical acumen. These sections ably support one another28. Section 3 of the
Limitation Act is a very important section. It deals with the different time periods that are to be
allowed to parties to file cases, beyond which the concept of limitation debars parties from filing
any suits. However, it is to be noticed that this section also provides for some exceptions- in
cases of extraordinary situations that lie in sections 4-24 of the Limitation Act.29 Minority, idiocy
and insanity are the different grounds under sections 6 and 7 of the act that allow parties to file
suits after the time period when the disability is over. The disability has to compulsorily exist at
the time from which period of limitation is supposed to begin. After such a time period has
already begun, no subsequent disability can lead to resetting of this clock as per section 9 of the
Limitation Act30 . A per section 6 (2), if a person is suffering from multiple disabilities, i.e., at
least two or if such a person has got rid of one form of disability and is suffering from a new one,
then in such situations he/she can only file a suit after these multiple disabilities or the newer
disability has ceased to exist31 . Section 8 makes it amply clear that the concept or pre-emptive
action does not exist in this case and that the time period for limitation is three years after the
death of such a person or the ceasing of his disability.32

Section 8

This section is ancillary to and restrictive of the concession granted in ss. 6 and 7, and does not
confer any substantial privilege33. This section is in the nature of a proviso to ss. 6 and 734.
Example, where the father as manager makes an alienation on behalf of himself and his three
minor sons and the eldest son attains majority 2 years before the death of the father, a suit for
partition and separate possession by the sons of their 2/3rd share on the ground that the alienation

28
The Limitation Act,1963.
29
C.K.TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963, SEVENTH EDITION,2013,
PAGE-787.
30
Ibid. 791.
31
The Limitation Act, 1963, sec. 6 (2).
32
The Limitation Act, 1963, sec. 8.
33
Rangaswami v. Thangavelu, 42 Mad 637.
34
Janardan v. Nilkantha, AIR 1952 Ori. 31.
14
by the father was not binding on them, filed more than three years after the death of the father
but within three years after the attainment of majority by the majority by the youngest son is
barred because the eldest son was competent to sue within three years after the death of the
father35.

The Supreme Court has held that the combined effect of s. 6 and s. 8 read with the third column
of the appropriate Article of the Limitation Act would be that a person under disability may sue
within the same period as would otherwise be allowed from the time specified therefore in the
third column of the schedule but the special limitation as an exception has been provided in s. 8
laying down that the extended period after cessation of disability would not be beyond three
years of the cessation of disability or the death of the disabled person. It has also be pointed out
by the Supreme Court that in each case the litigant is entitled to a fresh starting point of
limitation from the date of cessation of disability, subject to the condition that in no case the
period extended by this process under s. 6 or s. 7 shall exceed three years from the date of
cessation of disability.

Extension

The present section adds as a proviso to s. 6 that in no case the period be extended to anything
beyond three years from the cessation of the disability36. Under this section the period can be
extended up to an extent of three years, if under ordinary law out of the period of limitation
prescribed, there remains a period of less than three years for bringing the suit. But if the period
remaining is more than three years, no extension can be granted37.

The period of limitation shall be computed from the cessation of disability or death of the person
affected by the disability. The plaintiff has therefore to prove that he attained majority within
three years of filing of the suit38. The partner or assignee of the person in disability cannot avail
of the benefit of ss. 6 to 839. When a period of limitation prescribed for a suit is longer than three
years, there are two courses open to the minor. He may file the suit within the prescribed period

35
Kalandavel Gounder v. Chinnapan, AIR 1965 Mad 541S.
36
Vasudeva v. Maguni , 24 Mad 387.
37
Supra Note 18.
38
Kuntappa v. A.K. Desai, A.I.R. 1973 Mys. 50.
39
Abdul Padia v. Dinbandhu, A.I.R. 1960 Ori 15.
15
as given in the schedule of the Limitation Act, if the prescribed period expires during his
minority or if does not expire during his minority he can wait for the full course of time to run
and then before the expiry of the period prescribed institute the suit. In the alternative he may
take advantage of the provisions of s. 8 and file the suit within three years of the cessation of
disability40. When s. 8 speaks of cessation of disability it means cessation of the disability arising
from the want of the capacity of the group to give a valid discharge. That discharge would cease
when one in the group acquired the capacity to give a valid discharge without the concurrence of
the others41.

Pre-emption suit

The extended period of limitation under s. 6 or s. 7 does not apply to pre-emption suits42. As
right of pre-emption should be immediately asserted minority or other disability would not
excuse laches in assertion of the right.43

40
Nanhe khan v. Ganpati, A.I.R. 1954 Hyd. 45.
41
Supra Note 18.
42
Suraj Bhan v. Balwant Singh, A.I.R. 1972 Punj. 276.
43
Vishwanathan v. Ethirajulu, (1920) 45 MLJ 389.
16
 RULES PERTAINING TO LEGAL DISABILITY IN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
There are some provisions pertaining to legal disability in Civil Procedure Code of 1908. Some
of these sections are-

1. Under order 8 rule 5(1) of the CPC, it has been said that if a specific charge has not been
denied specifically or not admitted by a defendant then it would be admitted specifically except
against those persons suffering from legal disabilities44.

2. Section 6 (3) of limitation act of 1963 empowers legal representatives to file a suit after the
death of a person suffering from legal disability45, this provision is supported by order 22 rule 3
(1) of the CPC that makes legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff party to a suit46.

3. Under rule 4A of order 22, the court can appoint an administer General or an officer of the
court as it thinks fit to represent the estate of the deceased person, in case there are no legal
representatives left47.

4. Under rule 1 (1) of order 23 of the CPC, a suit where the plaintiff is a minor or any other
person to whom rules 1 to 14 of order 31 extend, then a suit can be withdrawn only after the
court has been satisfied as explained in rule 3 of order 23 on the grounds of formal defect or
existence of grounds to file a fresh suit. In the case of Joannala Sura Reddy v. Tiyyagura
Srinivasa48 it was said that no fresh suit can be filed if the previous suit has not been withdrawn
after taking the court’s consent under rules1and 3 of order 23.

5. Under rule 12 of Order 32 of CPC, which deals with suits filed by minors on them attaining
majority, it was said in the case of Vidya Wat v. Hans Raj49, that under the specific provision
mentioned above no dismissal of the suit is needed in case minor has decided not to pursue the
matter after attaining majority.

44
The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, order 8 rule 5 (1).
45
The Limitation Act, 1963, sec. 6 (3).
46
The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, order 22 rule 3 (1).
47
The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, order 22 rule 4 A.
48
A.I.R. 2004 AP 222.
49
A.I.R. 1993 Del 187.
17
 RELEVANT CASE LAWS PERTAINING TO LEGAL DISABILITY
While this list is not exhaustive, it aims to cover important cases across several high courts and
Supreme Courts that can be termed to be very crucial in having developed practices associated
with the mechanism of legal disability. This include-

1- Darshan Singh v. Gurdev Singh50 - Section 6 allows the minor to extend the limitation to
some more time and entitles the minor, insane or idiot to institute the suit or make the
application within the same period prescribed in the third column of the Schedule to the Act
after the said legal disability has come to an end. Special limitation explained in Section 8 of
the act has explained that extended period after cessation of the disability will not cover
beyond three years of the death of such legally disabled person or cessation of his said legal
disability. In each case, the plaintiff is considered to be empowered by section 8 to a fresh
starting period of limitation from the date of cessation of disability, which is consequently
subject to the condition that the period of such extension under Section 6 or 7. The plaintiff
can thus file a suit within this time period before limitation debars it.
2- Udhavji Anandji Ladha and Ors. v. Bapudas Ramdas Darbar51 - Section 6 does not cover
in any way any “intervening” kind of legal disability. When a legal disability is in existence,
only then can section 6 be successfully applied. But if a person cannot be termed to be
suffering from any kind of legal disability when such a limitation time-line begins, he cannot
in any way avail the relaxation of standards offered by section-6. While reading Section 3,
the period of limitation for suits has to be considered by reading Schedule 1 with Sections 4
to 25of the Limitation Act; and, therefore prescribed for a suit by a minor cannot be the
period mentioned in Schedule 1, but a special period that is described in Section 6 of the Act.
Therefore, in the case of a minor it cannot be said that the period for filing suits under
section 6 has expired without taking into account the provisos involved. This ensures that the
right of minors to contest suits is not taken away, without offering them any reasonable time
period to do so accordingly.

50
Darshan Singh v. Gurdev Singh, 1995 A.I.R. 75, 1994 S.C.C. (6) 585.
51
Dhavji Anandji Ladha and Ors. v. Bapudas Ramdas Darbar, A.I.R. 1950 Bom 94.
18
3- Lalchand Dhanalal v. Dharamchand and Ors.52 - This case stated that cause of action or
grievance must take place when the plaintiff (in this particular case the administratrix) dies
and the period of limitation is thus initiated with no subsequent disability leading to reset of
that clock as per section 9 of the Limitation Act. A plaintiff can only rightfully claim benefit
only if such a right existed due to a legal disability as and when the period of limitation
began. Any subsequent disability on his part will not stop the running of limitation.
Consequently, he will be governed by the same period of limitation as the earlier limited
owner, but such a disability can come into his defence if his claims are independent of the
earlier claimant’s plea.
4- Bapu Tatya Desai v. Bala Raojee Desai53 - This case stated the purpose of section 7 of the
Limitation act is to regulate the supposed indulgence that is available to minors to ensure that
the benefit of section 6 of the Limitation act does not extend to a correspondingly long
period of time but only till the eldest of the lot does not end up as a major.
5- Smt. Usha Rani Banerjee & Ors. v. Premier Insurance Company Ltd54- Section 7 had to be
taken as an exception to the general principle enunciated by Section 6 and held that if there
are multiple individuals that were jointly entitled to institute a suit and if one of them was
disabled, time would not run against any of them until the disability ceased to exist. But if
one of the persons entitled to institute the suit was competent to give discharge without the
concurrence of the other, then time would begin to run against both of them.
6- T. Kunhammad and Ors. v. M. Narayanan Nambudiri's Son55 - If under some substantive
law, a particular law entitles that a legally able person can represent an entire group, he/she
can be termed to be powerful enough to discharge that right without any consultation with
the other members of that group. Section 7 would not operate in the case of all the joint
creditors under disability were well covered by Section 6 of the Act. It is not considered
important whether a valid discharge is given by the person competent to

52
Lalchand Dhanalal v. Dharamchand and Ors. , A.I.R. 1965 MP 102.
53
Bapu Tatya Desai vs Bala Raojee Desai, (1920) 22 BOMLR 1383.
54
A.I.R. 1983 Allahbad 27.
55
T. Kunhammad and Ors. Vs M. Narayanan Nambudiri's Son, A.I.R. 1964 Ker 8.
19
 RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY LAW COMMISSION
The Law Commission of India in its eight-ninth report in 1963, focused on the Limitation act and
thus came up with the following pieces of recommendations which included the following parts
specifically on legal disability56 -

1- The Limitation act dealt with the concept of legal disability amply within sections 6-8 of
the act, with section 9 acting as a proviso of sorts.
2- The commission came up with the idea of not having any pre-emptive concept of legal
disability in this act as they felt that firstly pre-emption as a concept worked on a very
small time frame and the legislature at multiple junctions felt that there was no severe
need to bring this in. There were several special provisions for extending the time period,
hence no such further addition was supposed to be necessary57 .
3- The commission also felt that the grammatical aspects of some sections could be
improved. It was suggested that section 7 should be re-drafted to do away with the
expression of “time will not run” in order to do away with any ensuing confusion58.

Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that the Law Commission of India has on occasions felt
that laws pertaining to legal disability have been drafted well enough to suggest only one
change.

56
Law Commission of India, Eighty Ninth report on The Limitation Act, 1963.
57
Ibid, Chapter 16, para 16-E.
58
Ibid, Chapter 44, para 4.
20
 CONCLUSION

Thus we can understand from the above examples that law of Limitation and condonation of
Delay are two effective implementations in the quick disposal of cases and effective litigation.
On the one hand the law of limitation keeps a check on the pulling of cases and prescribes a time
period within which the suit can be filed and the time available within which the person can get
the remedy conveniently. The law of condonation of delay keeps the principle of natural justice
alive and also states the fact that different people might have different problem as and the same
sentence or a singular rule may not apply to all of them in the same way. Thus it is essential to
hear them and decide accordingly whether they fit in the criteria of the judgment or whether they
deserve a second chance.

Thus, after analyzing the various aspects of the mechanism of legal disability-its definitions, its
components, its developmental history, the various important case-laws etc, I conclude that this
mechanism in the Limitation act has far reaching ramifications that can systematically extend
over a long period of time. This law is primarily meant for usage by legally discredited
individuals and their legal representatives to rightfully claim within a reasonable time period
what is rightfully theirs. Since, such individuals are not legally entitled to file suits for such
purposes; there can be occasions where they are wrongfully deprived of their claims and dues. It
is meant to ensure that legal insanity or minority does not in any way deprive such persons of
their legal rights. However, this defensive mechanism could also be potentially misused and thus
several caveat provisions like that of the three year period have been introduced to keep a fair
check on both the sides involved in a dispute. This concept has been shaped importantly by
various case laws decided by different high courts as well as the Supreme Court. The Law
commission on the contrary, has felt that the law is reasonably clear; it is amply evident from the
fact that in their previous reports they have suggested just one change that of in section 7.
However, on a personal level, I feel that this very law is very much accurate and is ably
supported by the judicial machinery to ensure negligible misuse of its provisions.

21
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:-

D.F. Mulla, The Code of Civil Procedure (P.M. Bakshi Ed., 12th ed., Bombay: N.M. Tripathi
Private Limited, 1990)

S.N. Singh, The Code of Civil Procedure Including Pleadings (14th ed., Allahabad: Central Law
Agency, 1990).

C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963 (7th ed. 2013, Eastern Book Company,
Lucknow).

Dr. Avtar Singh, Code of Civil Procedure, (2nd ed. 2009, Central Law Publications, Allahabad).

Internet sources:-

www.scconline.com

www.manupatrafast.com

www.sodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in

www.indiankanoon.org

22