AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 89

39.31.Article 103.- Article 103 reads as unde.-

"103. To make good out of the general estate of a deceased trustee the loss occassioned by a breach of trust.

Three years.

The date of the trustee's death or if the loss has not then resulted. The date of the loss."

It is identical with Article 98 of the Acts of 1908 and 1877.

The corresponding article in the Act of 1871 was Article 99, which read as unde.-

"99. To make good out of the general estate of a deceased trustee the loss occasioned by a breach of trust.

Three years.

The date of the trustee's death or if the loss has not then been occasioned, the date of the loss."

The present article needs no change.

39.32.Article 104.- Article 104 reads as unde.-

"104. To establish a periodically recurring right.

Three years.

When the plaintiff is first refused the enjoyment of the right."

In the Act of 1908, Article 131 read as unde.-

"104. To establish a periodically recurring right.

Three years.

When the plaintiff is first refused the enjoyment of the right."
"131. To establish a periodically recurring right.

Three years.

When the plaintiff is first refused the enjoyment of the right."

The period of 12 years under the old Article 131 and the period of 6 years under the residuary Article 120 have both been reduced to three years, upon the recommendation of the Law Commission1 in its Report on the Act of 1908. One consequence of this is that the conflict of decisions as to whether old Article 131 (12 years) applied to the facts of a particular case or the residuary Article 120 (prescribing a shorter period) applied, has now lost its practical importance.

No change is needed in the article.

1. Law Commission of India, 3rd Report (Limitation Act, 108), Appendix 1 (Articles 1 and 38).

39.33.Article 105.- Article 105 reads as Three unde.-

"105. By a Hindu for arrears of maintenance.

Three years.

When the arrears are payable."

In the Act of 1908. Article 128 read as unde.-

"128. By a Hindu for arrears of maintenance.

Three years.

When the arrears are payable."

Reduction of the period of limitation from twelve years (Act of 1908) to three years was a result of the recommendation of the Law Commission1, made in its Report, on the Act of 1908.

No change is recommended in the present article.

1. Law Commission of India, 3rd Report (Limitation Act, 1908), para. 165.

39.34.Article 106.- This takes us to Article 106, which reads as unde.-

"106. For a legacy or for a share of a residue bequeathed by a testator or for a distributive share of the property of an intestate against and executor of an administrator or some other person legally charged with the duty of distributing the estate.

Twelve years.

When the legacy or share becomes payable or deliverable."

In the Acts of 1908 and 1877, Article 123 read as unde.-

"123. For a legacy or for a share of a residue bequeathed by a testator or for a distributive share of the property of an intestate.

Twelve years.

When the legacy or share becomes payable or deliverable."

In the Act of 1871, Article 122 read as unde.-

"122. For a legacy or for a distributive share of the moveable property of a testator or intestate..

Twelve years.

When the legacy or share becomes payable or deliverable."

In view of a Privy Council case,1 the article in the Act of 1908 was held .to apply only where the suit is brought against an executor or administrator or some person legally charged with the duty of distributing the estate. The Law Commission2 in its Report on the Act of 1908, recommended an amendment of Article 123 of the Act of 1908 to bring it in accord with the above ruling. This recommendation has been implemented in the present article. The article has not given rise to any further controversies, and may be retained as it is.

1. Ghulam Muhammad v. Sheikh Ghulam Hussain, ILR 54 All 193: AIR 1932 PC 81.

2. Law Commission of India, 3rd Report (Limitation Act, 1908), para. 160.

39.35.Article 107.- Article 107 reads as unde.-

"107. For possession of a hereditary office.

Twelve years.

When the defendant takes possession of the office adversely to the plaintiff."

Explanatio.-A hereditary office is possessed when the properties thereof are usually received, or (if there are no properties) when the duties there of are usually performed."

In the Acts of 1908 and 1877, Article 124 reads as unde.-

"124. For possession of a hereditary office.

Twelve years.

When the defendant takes possession of the office adversely to the plaintiff."

Explanation.- An hereditary office is possessed when the profits thereof are usually received, or (if there are no profits) when the duties thereof are usually performed."

In the Act of 1871, Article 123 differed very slightly (and only in the last column), by expressly mentioning "some person through whom he (defendant) claims."

The present article needs no change.

39.36.Article 108.- Article 108 reads as unde.-

"108. Suits during the life of a Hindu or Muslim female by a Hindu or Muslim who, if the female died at the date of instituting, the suit, would be entitled to the possession of land, to have an alienation of such land made by the female declared to be void except for her life or until her re-marriage.

Twelve years.

The date of alienation."

In the Acts of 1908 and 1877, Article 125 was in identical terms.

Parallel provision in the Act of 1871 was Article 124, which read as unde.-

"124. Suits during the life of a Hindu widow by a Hindu entitled to the possession of land on her death to have an alienation made by the widow declared to be void except for her life.

Twelve years.

The date of alienation."

39.37.Muslims.- Article 124 of the Act of 1871 restricted the scope of the article to estates held by Hindu widows. Later on, however, the ambit of the article was extended in order to include life estates held by Muslims females of the Punjab who were governed by customary Hindu law. Such instances have dwindled after the passing of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, which has overridden any such customs under certain circumstances.

39.38.Section 14, Hindu Succession Act.- After the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, utility of the article has declined even as regards a Hindu female. Section 14 of that Act confers absolute title in the property upon her1. The exceptions to this general rule have been enumerated in sub-section (2) of that section. Thus, the practical utility of the article is decreasing. However, the time has not yet come for outright deletion of the article.

1. V. Ttdasamnra v. Seshn Reddy, (1977) 3 SCC 99.

39.39.No change needed.- In the result, the article needs no change.

39.40.Article 109.- We now proceed to Article 109, which reads as unde.-

"109. By a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral property.

Twelve years.

When the alienee takes possession of the property."


The Limitation Act, 1963 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys