top of page

LIMITATION ACT (landmark Judgement)

Updated: May 4

LIMITATION ACT (landmark Judgement)
LIMITATION ACT (landmark Judgement)

Landmark judment on limitation act:-


Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 328

The Supreme Court emphasised that limitation serves to restrict the remedy available but does not nullify the underlying right.

Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects and Mktg Ltd, (2012) 2 SCC 624

The Supreme Court clarified that the term 'prescribed period' does not encompass extensions granted at the court's discretion.

Rama Murthy v. Ravula Somasundaram, (2005) 6 SCC 614

The Supreme Court asserted that if it becomes evident that a suit is time-barred, the court is obligated to address the issue of limitation, even if not raised in pleadings.

Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr v. ESI Corporation, AIR 1972 SC 1935

The purpose of statutes of limitation is to prompt individuals to pursue legal remedies within a reasonable timeframe and deter unfounded or fraudulent claims.

Mohd Chand v. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898

The fundamental principle underlying statutes of limitation is in the public interest, ensuring the resolution of disputes within a reasonable period, preventing perpetual litigation.

Japani Saho v. Chandrashekhar Mahanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762

The Limitation Act, 1963, does not establish time limits for filing criminal cases due to the nature of criminal offences as offences against the State. The maxim "lapse of time is no bar to the crown" reflects the principle that crimes do not expire with time.

A.S.K. Krishnappa Chettiar v. K.S.V.V. Somiah, AIR 1964 SC 227

The Limitation Act functions as a comprehensive statute governing the time limits for suits, appeals, and applications, and must be interpreted as exhaustive. Courts are not authorised to extend its provisions by inference to proceedings to which they do not explicitly apply.

Tilokchand Motichand v. H.P. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898

The constitutionality of the Limitation Act is upheld, as it serves as a protective measure rather than a tool for obstruction. The State cannot impede access to the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution by imposing limitation periods.



V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao, (2005) 4 SCC 613

The Supreme Court ruled that even if the defendant neglects to raise the plea of limitation, if it becomes evident to the court that the suit is prima facie time-barred, the court is obligated to dismiss it.

Ganesan v. TN. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, (2019) 7 SCC 108

The Supreme Court remarked that the suits, appeals, and applications mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1963, pertain to those intended for filing in a court of law, not before a statutory authority.

Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 

If the prescribed period for any suit/appeal/application expires on day when the Court is considered 'closed', such proceedings may be instituted on the re -opening day - A day when the Court may not as such be closed in physical sense, it would be 'deemed' to be closed, if during any part of its normal working hours, it remains closed on that day for any particular proceedings or work.

Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157

The Supreme Court held that the term 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally, devoid of rigid guidelines or fixed criteria.

Sandhya Rani v. Sudha Rani, AIR 1978 SC 537

The expression 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally to promote the cause of substantive justice.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022

The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The usual explanation of red tapism, pushing of files and the rigmarole of procedures cannot be accepted as sufficient cause - A different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved. 

Darshan Singh v. Gurdev Singh, AIR 1995 SC 75

Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Act are to be construed together, with Section 8 serving as a sort of proviso to Sections 6 and 7.

Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2537

In accordance with Section 3 of the Act, it is incumbent upon the court to apply the statute of limitation when it is evident, based on plain facts, that it is applicable, regardless of whether it is expressly pleaded.

Angadi v. Hiranmayya, AIR 1972 SC 239

Section 4 clarifies that it does not pertain to calculating the prescribed period or granting extensions, but rather extends a concession.

Damodaran Pillai v. South Indian Bank, AIR 2005 SC 3460

If the delay cannot be excused under Section 5 of the Act, it cannot be condoned through the court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361

It is unreasonable to expect a party to justify its conduct throughout the entire prescribed period. The party must demonstrate why it did not file an appeal on the final day of the prescribed limitation period and up until the actual filing of the application. Even if sufficient cause is demonstrated, condonation of delay is not an automatic entitlement.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. V. Mst. Katiji & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353

Section 5 grants the court a dual discretion: firstly, to assess the adequacy of the cause, and secondly, even if sufficient cause is established, the term 'may' in Section 5 signifies that the court retains discretion regarding whether to pardon the delay.



M/s Saketh India Ltd. v. M/s India Securities Ltd, AIR 1999 SC 1090

The Supreme Court clarified that in the computation of time, the general rule is to exclude the first day and include the last day.

N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 

The period spent in obtaining the copy can be excluded in calculating the period of limitation to file matrimonial appeals under Family Courts Act - Nothing inconsistent in Section 12 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act - Section 20 will not override the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. 

India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani, AIR 2003 SC 2084

According to the Supreme Court, there is no requirement for a party to file an application seeking exclusion of time as provided in Section 12.

Madhavrao N. Patwardhan v. Ram Krishna, AIR 1958 SC 767

The Supreme Court outlined the conditions necessary for invoking Section 14, emphasising the need for good faith and due diligence in prosecuting the previous suit or application, similarity of issues, and the court's inability to entertain the matter due to jurisdictional defects.

Zafar Khan v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1985 SC 39

The Supreme Court interpreted the phrase 'other causes of like nature' in Section 14 to encompass circumstances analogous to defects of jurisdiction.

Roshanlal Kuthalia and Ors v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi, AIR 1975 SC 824

The Supreme Court affirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act encompasses cases where defects, while not purely jurisdictional, bear similarities to such deficiencies.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maharaja Narain, AIR 1968 SC 960

The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 12, the 'time requisite' for obtaining a copy of the decree refers to the time beyond the party's control spent in acquiring the copy.

State of Kerala v. T.M. Chacko, (2009) 9 SCC 722

The acknowledgment of a debt under Section 18 initiates a fresh period of limitation from the date of acknowledgment.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd., 2022

As per Section 18 of Limitation Act, an acknowledgement of present subsisting liability, made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed, has the effect of commencing a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the acknowledgement is signed.

Such acknowledgement need not be accompanied by a promise to pay expressly or even by implication. However, the acknowledgement must be made before the relevant period of limitation has expired.

Sant Lal v. Kamla Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 477

To claim exemption under Section 20, the plaintiff must demonstrate not only the payment of interest or part payment of the principal but also that such payment was acknowledged in writing as per Section 20 requirements.


RavinderKaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729

The Supreme Court established that any individual who has established title through adverse possession may initiate a suit for the restoration of possession in the event of dispossession. It was ruled that the plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession falls within the purview of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, and there exists no impediment under the Limitation Act, 1963, to initiate legal action based on this ground in case of infringement of the plaintiff's rights.

Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kumar, (2019) 8 SCC 729

Once the 12-year period of adverse possession elapses, the owner forfeits the right to eject the adverse possessor, and the possessory owner acquires the rights, title, and interests previously held by the outgoing owner against whom the period of prescription has been established.


Such an adverse possessor not only can defend his title as a defendant in a suit but also has the option to file a suit seeking a declaration of his title and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession.

Ram Nagina Rai v. Deo Kumar Rai, (2019) 13 SCC 324

The test to determine adverse possession requires that the possession must be actual, open, exclusive, hostile, and continuous over the statutory period, achieved through wrongful dispossession of the rightful owner. Mere possession alone cannot constitute adverse possession.

Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, (2020) 11 SCC 263

A person claiming title through adverse possession must demonstrate with clear and unequivocal evidence that their possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of the real owner's title to the claimed property. Additionally, they must establish the identity of the true owner.

Narasamma v. A. Krishnappa, (2020) 15 SCC 218

Claiming title and adverse possession from the same date amounts to presenting contradictory and inconsistent pleas. When asserting adverse possession, it is implicit that someone else is the rightful owner of the property.

M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1

A person who has established title through adverse possession retains the right to initiate legal action for the restoration of possession in case of dispossession. Adverse possession serves both as a means of defence and as a means of asserting one's rights.


4 views0 comments


bottom of page