.jpg)
Srijan Sachan,
Babu Banaras Das University, Lucknow, UP
Introduction
Development of “The Limitation Act, 1963”
On 5th of October, 1963 an Act titled “The Limitation Act of 1963” was enacted by the Parliament of India. The Limitation Act, 1963 came to force in the year 1964 on 1st day of January. The Limitation Act, 1963 was made by the Parliament of United Kingdom, in the month of March, and then the bill was presented Infront of the Indian Parliament, after the Royal Assent i.e. on 31st July 1963 it came into force immediately.
Purpose and Objective
The main purpose of The Limitation Act, 1963 is to set time limits for filing a civil lawsuit. The Limitation Act, 1963 gives a framework and circumstances under which the period of limitation can be extended. It ensures that disputes are resolved on time and there are no fake claims under the suits. The Limitation Act, 1963 bars the legal actions and legal suits because it limits the time under which an individual can approach to the court.
The objective of the Parliament, by enacting The Limitation Act, 1963 in India is to prevent disturbance or deprivation in the case of equity and justice after enjoying the loss of party’s own inaction, negligence or laches. The Limitation Act, 1963 makes it compulsory that claims are brought to court within a reasonable time frame, thereby promoting justice and legal certainty.
Specifications
The Limitation Act, 1963 contains 32 sections and 137 articles, which covers the provisions for computation of time, condonation of delay, bar of limitation, legal disability, special exceptions, continuous running time and suits against trustee. The Limitation Act, 1963 gives power to the court to reject the appeals, applications and suits, if they are not submitted before the allotted time.
The Limitation Act, 1963 contains various sections which can cause complexities in disputes, especially in the case of property disputes. The purpose of writing this article is to unmask various deformities in The Limitation Act, 1963, which can cause unfair - justice, inequity and the violation of human rights in property disputes, and to conclude the point weather The Limitation Act, 1963 impacts property disputes positively or negatively.
Problems in The Limitation Act, 1963
Recent amendments
In two states of India i.e. Sikkim and West Bengal, The Limitation Act, 1963 was got amended. In West Bengal, The Limitation Act of 1963 was amended by the West Bengal Act 18 of 1977, because the West Bengal’s government thought that, the Limitation Act, 1963 consolidates the law for the limitation of suits and other proceedings. In Sikkim, The Limitation Act, 1963 was amended by State of Sikkim by the notification under No. S.O. 647(C) on August 24, 1984.
Defects in The Limitation Act, 1963
The main problem with The Limitation Act, 1963 is, whether or not the claimant had to know he had a method of action or not for the standard limitation period to apply. For instance, the provisions of the Act may be ambiguous and complex, because of which it becomes hard for an individual to understand the provisions.
The Limitation Act, 1963 also set time frames, which can cause some troubles for the plaintiffs because these time frames are rigid. In certain cases, The Limitation Act, 1963 overlaps with such laws, which contains their own limitation periods.
Problems due to Old Provisions
One of the major problems of The Limitation Act, 1963 is that, it is too old to regulate the modern societies. The Limitation Act, 1963 was enacted in the year 1963, because of which doesn’t contain the provisions for modern challenges arising due to digital contracts, e-commerce disputes, cybercrimes, and other electronic ways of committing crimes, which creates a gap between technological advancement and our judiciary. Rather than bounding the cases in a particular time period, The Limitation Act, 1963 also impacts various disputes, one of the disputes which are affected by the act is “the property disputes”. Now a question maybe arising in your mind is that -
What do you mean by property disputes?
In the terminology of Law, a property dispute is a disagreement between people or entities over the ownership, use or boundaries of a piece of real state. These disputes can be complex and involve legal, financial and emotional benefit of one party.
There are various legislations which regulates the property disputes, such as The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Registration Act, 1908, Partition Act, 1893, etc. Although, there are many legislations which governs, still The Limitation Act, 1963 plays a crucial role in the property disputes.
Impacts of The Limitation Act, 1963 in property disputes
Negative impacts of The Limitation Act, 1963 in property disputes
·The Limitation Act, 1963 affects the property disputes by prescribing a time period in which the parties must file their case, if they fail, their right to seek legal remedy will be abolished.
·Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act it was stated, a suit for possession of immovable property may based on title which should be filed within 12 years from the date the right to sue accrues. For example, a conflict for a property may arise but without any suit, these conflicts may run for long period of time without any legal suit, these conflicts may come into the courts after the prescribed time period of the act, which the courts may reject and the dispute never settled.
·For instance, if someone possessed another’s property to someone, without the consent of such property’s owner, and the property stays under the possession of such person for next 12 years, then such person can claim the ownership of such property, as mentioned in Article 65 of the limitation Act, 1963. Such provision of The Limitation Act, 1963 may cause unfair justice with the owner of the property. This may be considered as the flaw of Indian law, because this provision may violate the Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
·According to Article 61(a) of The Limitation Act, no suits to recover or redeem the property in case of mortgage shall be brought after the tenure of 30 years. This provision of law may bar the victims to recover their property in the case of mortgage.
·In the case of co-ownership to file a suit for partition, the time period prescribed is 12 years from the time they are ousted from the joint ownership, mentioned under Article 65 of The Limitation Act, 1963. This provision may impact the multiple owners of a single property because in some cases the co-owners decide for a partition after a long period of time, and this provision of law bars them to think for a partition of the property.
Positive impacts of The Limitation Act, 1963 in property disputes
·Although, there are various negative impact of the act in property disputes, but it should be taken in essence that, The Limitation Act, 1963 also affects the property disputes in a positive way.
·Section 3 of The Limitation Act, 1963 gives the power to the court to dismiss the suits filed after the limitation period, despite the fact that the defendant has raised the objection. This provision may save the time of the court, plaintiff and defendant. The Limitation Act, 1963 also encourages claimant to act intelligently in filing the suit by bounding him under a period of time, this may avoid the complications arising from the evidence loss or loss of records.
·Article 65 of The Limitation Act, 1963 promotes stability in property rights by bounding the parties in a time frame of 12 years. This may ensure that the property disputes are resolved within a reasonable time, which offers a peace of mind to its actual owner.
·Article 58 and 113 limits the tenure to sue accrues for 3 years. This may increase the efficiency of our legal system by promoting the timely resolution of the disputes regarding the property. The Limitation Act, 1963 also reduces unnecessary delays and maintains the legal stability in property disputes.
·The Limitation Act, 1963 also introduces the doctrine of adverse possession, which allows the tenant to stay under possession of the property without any trouble which can be created by the owner of the property for up to 12 years. Article 65 also interprets that if the owner possesses his property to a tenant, and such tenant stays under the possession of the property for 12 years, then it many demolish the rights of the owner. This discourages absentee landlords or property owners from neglecting their property for several years.
·Article 61 of The Limitation Act, 1963 bonds the owner to recover his property under 30 years from mortgage. This provision of the law ensures that such disputes handled within a reasonable time, because of which various complexities didn’t arise in such cases, which saves the time of courts as well.
·Section 17 of The Limitation Act, 1963 allows that, the limitation period can be extended in the case fraud, mistake, or concealment of the facts which is discovered after the limitation period. This provision recognizes the cases of frauds, mistaken and concealment, and ensures that the injured party in the case of fraud, mistaken and concealment, can recover the property fairly. This provision promotes fairness in The Limitation Act, 1963.
Judicial Interpretations
Hence, the provisions of The Limitation Act, 1963 impact property disputes significantly, but we can’t conclude weather the act causes negative or positive impact, until we discuss the impact of The Limitation Act in case laws.
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004):
Issue: This case deals with concept of adverse possession, stated under The Limitation Act, 1963.
Judgment: In this case, Supreme Court held that, for the claim of adverse possession, the possession must be peaceful, visible and continuous. According to the court, if a person wants the possession of the property under adverse provision, then such should not be involved in any legal disputes over the land, during this period. The court also said, the possession should be visible to others and especially the owner of the property. The possession must not be broken for 12 years.
The court didn’t agree with the condition of adverse possession under this case. The court discouraged dishonest and reminds that, adverse possession cannot be assumed unless the possession is clearly seems to owner’s interest.
Impact: This case sets a precedent for the property disputes arising under the concept of adverse possession. Although, The Limitation Act has various positive impacts on property disputes, but in this case, it impacted negatively because a conception of The Limitation Act, 1963 brought a legal suit, which wastes the time of court and caused some trouble for the owner.
L.N. Aswathama & Anr. v. P. Prakash (2009):
Issue: In this case, a dispute raised for the possession of the property under the concept of adverse possession, where the tenant stays under upon the land for more than 12 years, without the consent of owner.
Judgement: The Supreme Court held that, occupying property without the consent of actual owner’s consent didn’t make the tenant to claim the property under adverse possession. There must be evidence, which shows the honest possession of the property with the owner’s consent.
Impact: Similarly in this case, the concept of adverse provision impacted negatively by wasting the time of the court.
State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2011):
Issue: This case questions, weather the state can claim under adverse possession for a property.
Judgement: Supreme Court made a significant observation under this case. The Supreme Court held that, the government can’t use the concept of adverse possession as a weapon for stealing the private properties.
Impact: The judgement raised questions about the fairness of adverse possession and it highlights the need to protect rightful owners from loosing their property due to technicalities.
Conclusion
Hence, we brought to a conclusion that, The Limitation Act, 1963 impacts negatively in property disputes, but it should be consider that some of the provisions of The Limitation Act, 1963 helps the owners and courts to resolve disputes peacefully, without the interference of any complexity.
The doctrine of adverse possession under The Limitation Act, 1963, have significant implications, especially in the case of absent owner. This doctrine is always be a subject of criticism, because in some cases it rewards the wrongful occupiers and wastes the time of the courts. Courts may suffer because of doctrine of adverse possession under The Limitation Act, 1963 because it can add some complexity to the case and made them more time consuming for the courts to give a fair judgement upon them.
In some instances, courts also fail to adhere the importance of The Limitation Act, 1963 in property disputes. In the case of, Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004), Supreme Court made it clear that the adverse possession must be peaceful, open and hostile to owner’s interests. Similarly on the case of, L.N. Aswathama &Anr. v. P. Prakash (2009), the court mandates to provide clear and convincing evidence of hostile possession, cautioning against frivolous claims of adverse possession. These cases demonstrates that, in some instances courts fail to understand the doctrine of adverse possession and passes the judgement in the favor of one party in a dispute. It should be considered that, the unfair judgements caused due to the ambiguous language of The Limitation Act, 1963, which impacts negatively in property disputes.
At the end, The Limitation Act, 1963 balances fairness and effectiveness of the property laws. Some provisions of the act may be criticized because of complexity and unfairness it added in the property laws. However, the end motive of “The Limitation Act, 1963” is to promote equity and fairness in the society, despite the fact that some provisions of The Limitation Act, 1963 lack behind in fulfilling the motive, but the Indian Parliament can restore such failures through judicial reviews.
References
·Indian Penal Code: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1565/5/A1963-36.pdf
·Judicial Academy Jharkhand:
·A Agarwalla & CO.: https://aagarwalla.com/faq/what-is-the-limitation-of-property-dispute/#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20for%20suits%20related%20to,limitation%20period%20of%2012%20years
·Indian Kanoon: Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1418721/
·L.N. Aswathama & Anr. v. P. Prakash (2009): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1464500/
·State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2011): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/290532/
·Times of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
Comments