Wednesday, May 29, 2024

๐—๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—น๐——๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—บโ„ข

๐™ฐ๐™ต๐™ต๐™พ๐š๐™ณ๐™ฐ๐™ฑ๐™ป๐™ด & ๐™ฐ๐™ฒ๐™ฒ๐™ด๐š‚๐š‚๐™ธ๐™ฑ๐™ป๐™ด

LIMITATIONMODEL ANSWER

EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY

Limitation bars the remedy but does not destroy the right. Discuss and state the exception if any.

Limitation Act, 1963, is based upon the principle of equity, justice and good conscience and it is founded upon public policy. The main aim of this act is to protect both the parties from unnecessary harassment, hardship and fear. If any party files a suit against another party then the latter party has right to defend himself and he can defend himself only by producing relevant evidences but if former person files a suit after a long period from the date of arising of cause of action, then in such a situation, it might be possible that evidences of defendant may get vanished or the memory of witnesses may get faded. So, to protect the defendant from such unusual situations, period of limitation has been prescribed for filing every suit.

According to section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963, if any person files any suit after the expiry of period of limitation, then in such a case, it is mandatory for the court to dismiss that suit.

According to section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963, it is responsibility of every person to file the suit within the period of limitation and if he fails to file the suit within period of limitation, then it is mandatory for the court to dismiss that suit.

According to section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, even if the suit has been dismissed by the court on the ground of expiry of period of limitation, then also, the right to which the remedy relates to continue to exist. Generally it means that Limitation Act, 1963, bars the remedy but it does not destroy the right. The right still remains subsists even if the remedy has been barred by this act.

In the leading case of Punjab National Bank and ors. vs Surendra Prasad Sinha, the Honโ€™ble court held that section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, only bars the remedy but does not destroy the right to which the remedy relates to. The right continues to exist notwithstanding that the remedy has been barred by the limitation.

This is a general rule that limitation bars the remedy but does destroy the right but section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is an exception to this rule and section 27 not only bars the remedy but it bars the right also. But this section is applicable upon the suit for possession of property.

According to section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if any person has right to get the possession of the property and he files a suit for getting the possession of abovesaid property after the expiry of period of limitation, then in such a case, his right to get possession of property will also be barred by the limitation alongwith the remedy given by the law.

In the leading case of Banarsi Das vs Jiwan Ram, the Honโ€™ble court held that after the expiry of period of limitation, not only the remedy to file a suit for possession of property is barred but the right to get the possession of the property in dispute is also extinguished.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!