“LEGAL DISABILITY AND ITS EFFECT ON CIVIL LAW”

INTRODUCTION-

The object of law of limitation is in accordance with the maxim, interest

reipublicaeut sit finis litium[1]which means the interest of State requires that there
should be an end to litigation.

The object of the law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what

may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may
have been lost by party’s own inaction, negligence or laches[2].

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 law of limitation is basically and prima facie, a rule of procedure, stating
thereby the remedy can be exercised only within a limited period and not
subsequently. It does not create any right or create causes of action. Similarly it
should be read in a sense that limitation as distinguished from prescription
merely bars remedy but does not destroy the right[3]. So law of limitation gives a
clarion call that court cannot assist those who are lethargic, apathetic or prone to
sleeping over the matter[4]. So, that being the position and specialty of law of
limitation, the provisions of this act has to be construed strictly. Equitable
considerations are out of place and the strict grammatical meaning of the word is
the only safe guide[5].

Thus, the law of limitation is a statute of peace and repose and is based on the
principle of public policy and a principle of vigilance.

“The limitation for institution of a legal action is a limitation on the availability of

a legal remedy during a certain period of time. Different periods are prescribed for
various remedies. The idea is that every legal action must be kept alive for a
legislatively fixed period of time. The object of legal remedy is to repair a damage
caused by reason of a legal injury suffered by the suitor. A legal remedy therefore,
can never come into existence before a legal injury occurs. It is legal injury that
calls legal remedy to life and action. The case of limitation fixes the life span of a
legal remedy for the redress of a legal injury. It is not conceivable that the
legislature would fix the limitation to run from a point earlier to the occurring of a
legal injury and consequently before a legal remedy could have come into
existence. Jurisprudentially therefore a period limitation can only start running
after an injury occurred and appropriate remedy springs up into action[6].”

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.And the same circumstances give keys to enumeration of section 6 and 7 in
Limitation Act, 1963.

TYPES OF LEGAL DISABILITY-

There are three types of legal disabilities that have been described in the
Limitation act, 1963[7] . These includes-

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 1875[8] , a person becomes
a major when he/shecompletes 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 years[9] . 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 question[10]. 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
Maharashtra[11]that was contested in the Supreme Court. In this case the court
dealt with the concept of insanity in our legal system at 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 Pradesh[12], it was said
that there were four sub-types of non-compos mentis i.e., (1) an idiot; (2) one
made non compos by illness (3) a lunatic or a mad man and (4.) one who is
drunk. Idiocy included the following characteristics which included-(a) non-sane
memory from birth by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals (b) idiots are
unable to count twenty(c) tell the days of the week(d) 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 i.e. 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.

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)[13].

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. 6[14].

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.
6[15]. Where after the limitation has started running against one person, another
person becomes entitled to sue on the same cause of action, 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. 6[16].

Computation of period: In computing the period of limitation for a minor, the

date on which he attains majority must be excluded from calculation[17]. 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[18]. Section 6 does not prevent running of limitation
but only extends the period of limitation[19].

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 expired[20]. 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 section[21].

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 propriomotu. 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 invoke the revisional power of the High
Court under s. 115 CPC[22]. 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 appeal[23].
The person claiming disability has the onus to prove satisfactorily that he has
come within three years of attainment of majority[24].

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 run[25].
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 majority[26]. 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 accrued[27].

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’scapacity to sue; the time within
which they can sue is co-existence with the time allowed to the elder brother[28]

LEGAL DIABILITY U/S 6 AND COMBINATION WITH OTHER SECTIONS OF

LIMITAION ACT 1963-

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 another[29]. 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[30] . 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 Act[31] . 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 exist[32] . 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[33] .

Section 8 is ancillary to and restrictive of the concession granted in ss. 6 and 7,

and does not confer any substantial privilege[34]. This section is in the nature of a
proviso to ss. 6 and 7[35]. 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 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 father[36].

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
disability[37]. 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 granted[38].

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 suit[39]. The benefit of
ss. 6 to 8 cannot be availed of by the partner or assignee of the person in
disability[40]. 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 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
disability[41]. 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 others[42].

Pre-emption suit: The extended period of limitation under s. 6 or s. 7 does not

apply to pre-emption suits[43]. As right of pre-emption should be immediately
asserted minority or other disability would not excuse laches in assertion of the
right[44].

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 disabilities[45].
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 disability[46], this
provision is supported by order 22 rule 3 (1) of the CPC that makes legal
representatives of a deceased plaintiff party to a suit[47].
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 left[48].
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 JoannalaSura Reddy v.
TiyyaguraSrinivasa[49] 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 VidyaWat v. Hans
Raj[50], 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.

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 does 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. sayedatunnisia[51]. Nor it does apply to an application for the
readmission of an appeal under Order 41 rule 10, of CPC[52].It is not applicable
for bringing on record legal representative of a deceased party[53].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.[54]Similarly 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 section[55].

But claim for under section 110A 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.

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. These
include-

 Darshan Singh v.Gurdev Singh[56] – 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.
 UdhavjiAnandjiLadha andOrs. v.BapudasRamdasDarbar[57] – 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.
 Dharamchand and Ors.[58] – 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.
 BapuTatya Desai vsBalaRaojee Desai[59]– 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.
 Usha Rani Banerjee &Ors. v. Premier Insurance Company Ltd[60]–
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.
 Kunhammad and Ors. v. M. Narayanan Nambudiri’s Son[61] – 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

1. 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 disability[62] –

 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.
 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 necessary[63] .
 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 confusion[64].

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.

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 analysing 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.

[1]P RamanathaAiyar’s Concise Law Dictionary, page 674, Lexis Nexis Fifth
Edition

[2]Rajindar Singh v. Santa, AIR 1973 SC 2537

[3]Kashiram v. Kundanlal, AIR 1956 All 660 (DB)

[4]First National Bank v. SantLal, AIR 1959 Punj 328

[5]The Ramanathapuram Market Committee, Virudhunagar v. East India

Corporation Ltd., Madurai, AIR 1976 Mad 323

[6]ShaikhLayak v. State of A.P,(1981)2 Andh. WR 64

[7] The Limitation Act, 1963, Section 6

[8]The Indian Majority Act, 1875, Section 3 (1).

[9]Bajpai,Asha,“Who is a child?”, www.infochangeindia.org,2007,

[10] The Limitation Act, 1963, page 7.

[11]S.K.Yadav V State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising

out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.509 of 2008).

[12] AIR 2009 SC 768

[13]PonnammaPilai v. PadmanabhanChannar, AIR 1969 Ker. 163

[14]Bailchon Karan v. BasantKumariNaik, AIR 1999 SC 876

[15]Zafir v. Amiruddin, AIR 1963 Pat.108

[16]Abed hossain v. Abdul Rahman, ILR (1935)63, Cal. 92

[17]Shah Hiralal v. Shah Fulchand, AIR 1956 Sau 90

[18]I.S. Mohammad v. N.A.N. Mohammad, AIR 1984 Guj. 126

[19]PonnammaPilai v. PadmanabhanChannar, AIR 1969 Ker. 163 (FB)

[20]Tulsiram v. Kishori Prasad, AIR 1962 Pat 189

[21]Electricity Board of UP v. SheoNath Singh, AIR 1976 All. 118

[22]PanchuMandal v. Sheikh Isaf, 17 CWN 667

[23]Harikumar v. Udeyram, AIR 1972 Bom. 262

[24]GopiNath v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1962 All. 53

[25] Firm Dunichand v. Kuldip Singh, AIR 1935 Lah 144

[26]Kasim v Sip, AIR 1956 Sau 20

[27]Supra Note 13
[28]Jowala v. Sant Singh, AIR 1932 Lah. 605

[29] The Limitation Act,1963

[30]Takwani, C.K., Civil Procedure Code with Limitation Act,1963,Seventh

Edition, 2013, Page-787

[31]Ibid. at 791

[32] The Limitation Act, 1963, sec. 6 (2)

[33] The Limitation Act, 1963, sec. 8

[34]Rangaswami v. Thangavelu, 42 Mad 637

[35]Janardan v. Nilkantha, AIR 1952 Ori. 31

[36]KalandavelGounder v. Chinnapan, AIR 1965 Mad 541S

[37]Vasudeva v. Maguni, 24 Mad 387

[38]Supra Note 18

[39]Kuntappa v. A.K. Desai, AIR 1973 Mys. 50

[40]Abdul Padia v. Dinbandhu, AIR 1960 Ori 15

[41]Nanhe khan v. Ganpati, AIR 1954 Hyd. 45

[42]Supra Note 18

[43]SurajBhan v. Balwant Singh, AIR 1972 Punj. 276

[44]Vishwanathan v. Ethirajulu, 19220 45 MLJ 389

[45] The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, order 8 rule 5 (1).

[46]The Limitation Act, 1963, sec. 6 (3)

[47] The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, order 22 rule 3 (1).

[48]The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, order 22 rule 4 A.

[49] AIR 2004 AP 222,

[50]AIR 1993 Del 187

[51]AIR 1943 Mad. 55

[52]Sonubhai v. Shivaji Rao, 45 Bom 648

[53]ShilaWanti v. Kishore Chand, AIR 1933 Cal. 508

[54]Govindnaik v. Bassawannewa, AIR 1941 Bom 203

[55]KondkarMahomed v. Chandra Kumar, 56 Cal. 1117

[56]Darshan Singh v. Gurdev Singh, 1995 AIR 75, 1994 SCC (6) 585.

[57]DhavjiAnandjiLadha and Ors.v. BapudasRamdasDarbar, AIR 1950 Bom 94.

[58]LalchandDhanalal v. Dharamchand and Ors., AIR 1965 MP 102.

[59]BapuTatya Desai vsBalaRaojee Desai, (1920) 22 BOMLR 1383,

[60] AIR 1983 Allahbad 27

[61]T. Kunhammad and Ors. Vs M. Narayanan Nambudiri’s Son, AIR 1964 Ker 8.

[62] Law Commission of India, Eighty Ninth report on The Limitation Act, 1963.

[63]Ibid, Chapter 16,para 16-E.

[64]Ibid, Chapter 44,para 4.