CRITICALLY ANALYZING RULES RELATING TO

PERSONS SUFFERING FROM LEGAL DISABILITY

INTRODUCTION

This article is an attempt to critically analyze rules relating to the concept of legal disability.
This concept is enshrined in Section 6 of the statute of Limitation Act, 1963. This concept
also extends to other sections within the same act like sections 7, 8 and 9 which play an
important role in this concept. This concept can be described as some kind of cooling off
period wherein individuals or their legal representatives of any form cannot file suits because
of any legally induced disability- either insanity, idiocy or minor age. Once this disability is
over, only then can parties file suits or their legal representatives can. This legal concept can
be termed as some kind of eligibility criteria that allows/disallows parties from contesting
their legal claims. This area of law can termed to be strictly time bound and allows
concessions only when there is existence of some extra-ordinary circumstances that justifies
any corresponding extension.
This article aims to analyze in depth the various components of this legal concept, its
relationship with other sections and sub-sections in the Limitation act, the relation this
concept shares with other laws like that of Indian Majority Act of 1875, the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 etc, important and relevant case laws that have shaped and re-shaped this
concept over the years, the recommendations of the Law commission among others as well as
what I personally conclude about this concept.

TYPES OF LEGAL DISABILITY

There are three types of legal disabilities that have been described in section 6 (1) of the
Limitation act, 19631. These include1. Minor
2. Insane
3. Idiot
The first of these criterions for legal disability, minor has to do with a persons age. Under
Section 3 (1) of The Indian Majority Act of 18752, a person becomes a major when he/she
1
2

See The Limitation Act, 1963, 6.

See The Indian Majority Act, 1875, 3 (1).

completes eighteen years. This computation of age is to be done after taking into account the
following two provisos discussed in section 3 (2)3

The day on which the said individual is born is to be included as a whole day.
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 years4. 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 5. A
child in the womb is also termed as a minor6.
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 Maharashtra7 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.
Behaviors, 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 Pradesh8, 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 ie 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 ie while a person can turn lunatic at any time in his
lifetime, a person is an idiot since his/her birth.
3

Id., 3 (2).
Infochangeindia.org, Who is a child, Asha Bajpai, 2007, available at http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/childrights-in-india/who-is-a-child.html (Last visited on 7th May, 2016).
5
Id., note 4.
4

Universals Bare Act with Short Notes, 2014- The Limitation Act, 1963, page 7.

S.K.Yadav V State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.509
of 2008).
8

See Hari Singh Gond V State of Madhya Pradesh, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2007
7.

RULES PERTAINING TO LEGAL DISABILITY IN LIMITATION ACT

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 another9.
Section 3 of the Limitation Act is a very important section. It deals with the different timeperiods 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 Act10.
Minority, idiocacy 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 Act11.
A per section 6 (2), if a person is suffering from multiple disabilities ie 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 exist12. 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 disability13.

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 are1. 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 disabilities14.
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 disability15, 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 16.
9

The Limitation Act,1963.

C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963, SEVENTH
EDITION,2013, PAGE-787.
11
Id., page-791.
12
The Limitation Act, 1963, 6 (2).
13
Id., 8.
14
The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, order 8 rule 5 (1).
15
Supra note 12 6 (3).
10

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 left17.
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 Joannala Sura Reddy V. Tiyyagura
Srinivasa AIR 2004 AP 22218, it was said that no fresh suit can be filed if the previous suit
has not been withdrawn after taking the courts 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 Vidya Wati (deceased) through her L.Rs. V. Hans
Raj (deceased) through his L.Rs., AIR 1993 Del 18719, 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.

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 include1- Darshan Singh V Gurdev Singh20- 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.

16

Supra note 14, order 22 rule 3 (1).

Id., order 22 rule 4 A.
18
Universals Bare Act with Short Notes, 2014-The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, page 16.
17

19

Id., page 186.

20

Darshan Singh V Gurdev Singh, 1995 AIR 75, 1994 SCC (6) 585.

2- Udhavji Anandji Ladha and Ors. Vs Bapudas Ramdas Darbar21- 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.

3- Lalchand Dhanalal vs Dharamchand and Ors.22- 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 claimants plea.
4- Bapu Tatya Desai vs Bala Raojee Desai - 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 major23.
5- Smt. Usha Rani Banerjee & Ors. Vs. Premier Insurance Company Ltd, Madras & Ors.
AIR 1983 Allahabad 27- 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 them24.
6- T. Kunhammad and Ors. Vs M. Narayanan Nambudiri's Son - 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
21

Udhavji Anandji Ladha and Ors. vs Bapudas Ramdas Darbar, AIR 1950 Bom 94.
Lalchand Dhanalal vs Dharamchand and Ors. , AIR 1965 MP 102.
23
See Bapu Tatya Desai vs Bala Raojee Desai, (1920) 22 BOMLR 1383, 3.
24
Supra note 6 .
22

give the same. The only question is whether he could give it under the ambit of section 7
of the Limitation Act. A valid discharge of the suit under section 7 can take place by a
major with/without the concurrence of the minors25.

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 disability261- 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.
2- 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
necessary27.
3- 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 confusion28.
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, 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
25

T. Kunhammad and Ors. Vs M. Narayanan Nambudiri's Son, AIR 1964 Ker 8.

Law Commission of India, Eighty Ninth report on The Limitation Act, 1963.
27
Id., Chapter 16, 16-E.
28
Id., Chapter 44, 4.
26

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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY-

indiankanoon.org
infochange.india.org
indiacode.nic.in
bharatchugh.wordpress.com
Universals Bare Act with Short Notes, 2014- The Limitation Act, 1963.
Universals Bare Act with Short Notes, 2014-The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
Civil Procedure Code with Limitation Act, 1963 By C.K Takwani,
seventh edition, 2013.

Submitted by
Saurabh Kumar,
3rd Year, WBNUJS