Legal Disability under Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 6, 7, and 8 Explained with Case Laws

"Legal Disability under Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 6, 7, and 8 Explained with Case Laws”

Introduction:-

The Limitation Act, 1963 lays down the time periods within which a suit, appeal, or application must be filed in a court of law. Ordinarily, time runs from the date on which the cause of action arises. But sometimes, the person entitled to sue suffers from legal disability such as being a minor, insane, or of unsound mind. In such cases, strict application of limitation would cause injustice.

            To remedy this, the Act makes special provisions under Sections 6, 7, and 8. These sections deal with the extension of limitation period in case of legal disabilities, ensuring that persons under disability are not deprived of their rights merely because of their incapacity.

Section 6: Legal Disability

Section 6 provides that if a person is, at the time from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned, suffering from a legal disability (minority, insanity, or idiocy), he may institute the suit or application within the same period after the disability has ceased as would otherwise have been allowed from the original starting point.

               Thus, time does not run against persons under legal disability.

Provisions of Section-6 of Limitation Act 1963 explained below:-

1. Disability at Commencement

If the plaintiff is a minor, insane, or idiot at the time the cause of action arises, limitation will begin only when the disability is removed.

Example: A cause of action arises on 20 August 2005. The plaintiff is a minor until 15 March 2006. The limitation period starts from 16 March 2006.

Case- Firm Dunichand v. Kuldeep Singh (AIR 1955 Lahore 144) – Plaintiff must be under disability on the date of commencement of limitation for Section 6 to apply.

2. Successive Disabilities

If one disability is followed by another before the first is removed, limitation runs only after both end.

Example: A plaintiff is a minor, and before attaining majority, he becomes insane. Time runs only after he regains sanity.

3. Disability Continues Until Death

If the person dies while still under disability, his legal representative may institute the suit within the same period after death as would have been allowed if the person had lived.

Ramliyah v. Brahmmiyah (AIR 1930 Madras 821) – Limitation runs from the death of the disabled person.

4. Legal Representative Also Disabled

If at the time of the person’s death, his legal representative is also under disability, time will start only when the representative’s disability ends.

Lakshmandas v. Sundar (59 IC 678) – Limitation postponed until disability of legal representative ceases.

5. Death After Removal of Disability

If a person dies after removal of disability but before expiry of limitation, his legal representative may file the suit within the remaining time.

Section 6 in short -

👉Protects persons suffering from disability.

👉Successive disabilities are covered.

👉Rights extend to legal representatives as well.

Section 7 of Limitation Act 1963: Disability of One of Several Persons

Section 7 is a supplementary provision to Section 6. It applies where several persons are entitled to institute a suit or make an application jointly, and one or more of them suffer from disability.

The rule is:

✓If a valid discharge can be given by any of them without the consent of the person under disability, then limitation runs against all.

✓If no discharge can be given without the consent of the disabled person, limitation will not run until he becomes competent.

Explanation of Section-7 of Limitation Act 1963:-

1. Discharge by Competent Person

If a discharge of liability (e.g., receipt of money, settlement of claim) can be given by a competent joint holder, limitation will run against all, even though one is under disability.

2. Discharge Requires Consent of Disabled Person

If no discharge can be given without the disabled person’s consent, limitation does not run until the disability ends.

Case Laws related to section- 7 

Lalaram v. Ram Swarup (AIR 1964 All 495) – Under Mitakshara Hindu law, the Karta of a joint family can give valid discharge without consent of minors; limitation runs against all members.

Bholanand v. Parmanand (6 CWN 348) – A natural or legal guardian can give discharge for minors.

Amina Bibi v. Bama Shankar (41 All 473) – Under Muslim law, the mother is not a legal guardian of minor’s property; hence cannot give discharge.

Devaki v. Kanan (AIR 1941 Mad 678) – A co-trustee can give discharge without consent of others.

Sharda Prasad v. Lala Jamna Prasad (AIR 1961 SC 1074) – A co-sharer can give discharge without consent of other co-sharers.

Section-7 in short -

✓Applies in cases of joint rights.

✓Limitation runs if a competent person can discharge liability on behalf of all.

✓Protects disabled persons when their consent is legally necessary.

Section 8 of Limitation Act 1963: Special Exceptions 

Section 8 imposes two important limitations on Sections 6 and 7:

1. Maximum Period of Three Years

Even if disability continues, a suit cannot be filed later than three years from the date of removal of disability or death.

This ensures that claims are not indefinitely postponed.

2. Not Applicable to Certain Rights

Sections 6 and 7 do not apply to suits for pre-emption or other specific rights.

Case Law related to section-8

Janardan v. Neelkant (AIR 1952 Orissa 31) – Section 8 acts as a proviso to Sections 6 and 7.

Alarakshi Bibi v. Ujala Bibi (AIR 1966 Orissa 49) – A minor became major in June 1954; limitation extended only up to June 1957 (3 years), not indefinitely.

Section 8 in short -

✓Absolute bar against indefinite extension.

✓Maximum grace period: 03 years after removal of disability.

✓Excludes cases like pre-emption.

In short easy to remember: Sections 6, 7, and 8 of Limitation Act 1963:-

Section 6 protects individuals suffering from disability by postponing limitation until disability ceases.

Section 7 deals with cases where rights are held jointly; limitation may run against all if a competent person can give discharge.

Section 8 limits the benefit by imposing a maximum extension of three years.

These provisions collectively balance two principles:

1. Protection of vulnerable persons (minors, insane, etc.).

2. Certainty and finality in litigation by preventing indefinite delays.

Conclusion:-

The Limitation Act, 1963 recognizes that certain persons may be incapable of protecting their rights due to legal disability. Sections 6, 7, and 8 carve out exceptions to the general rules of limitation. While Sections 6 and 7 safeguard the interests of disabled persons, Section 8 prevents misuse of these provisions by capping the extension period.

       Thus, the Limitation Act ensures that justice is served both by protecting the weak and by maintaining certainty in law.

~ Aryavart Law Hub ( www.aryavartlawhub.in )