LEGAL DISABILITY

Legal Disability is enshrined in Section 6 of the statute of Limitation Act,

1963. This concept also extends to other sections within the same act like
Section(s) 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 analyse 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 describe in Section
6(1) of the Limitation Act, 19631. These include:
1. Minor
2. Insane
3. Idiot

1 Limitation Act, 1963, Section 6.

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 2, a person
becomes a major when he/she 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.
1. The day on which the said individual was born is to be included as a
whole day.
2. He/ She is thus said to become a major as and when the eighteen
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. 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 and 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. A child in womb is also termed as minor4.
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 MAHARASHTRA5 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.

2 Indian Majority Act, 1875, Section 3(1).

3 Indian Majority Act, 1875, Section 3(1).
4 Universal’s Bare Act with Short Notes, 2018- The Limitation Act, 1963, Page 7.
5 Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2008.
In the case of HARI SINGH GOND V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH6, 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” i.e. 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, 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 another7.
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 8.
Minority, idiocrasy 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

6 Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2007.

7 Limitation Act, 1963.
8 C.K. Takwani, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Limitation Act, 1963, Seventh Edition,

2013, Page No. 787.

already begun, no subsequent disability can lead to resetting of this clock as
per section 9 of the Limitation Act9.
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 exist10.
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 disability11.

RULES PERTAINING TO LEGAL DISABILITY IN CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 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 disabilities12.
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 disability13,
this provision is supported by order 22 rule 3 (1) of the CPC that makes
legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff party to a suit14.
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 15.
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,

9 C.K. Takwani, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Limitation Act, 1963, Seventh Edition,
2013, Page No. 791.
10 Limitation Act, 1963, Section 6(2).
11 Limitation Act, 1963, Section 8.
12 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 8- Rule 5(1).
13 Limitation Act, 1963, Section 6(3).
14 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 22- Rule 3(1).
15 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order 22- Rule 4A.
 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 222 16, 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 Vidya Wati
(deceased) through her L.RS. V. HANS RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH
HIS L.RS., AIR 1993 Del 18717 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 DISAVILITY

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 SINGH18 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,

16 Universal’s Bare Act with Short Notes, 2018- Page No. 16.
17 Universal’s Bare Act with Short Notes, 2018- Page No. 186.
18 1995 AIR SCC (6) 585.
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.

UDHAVJI ANANDJI LADHA AND ORS. V. BAPUDAS RAMDAS DARBAR 19

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 25 of 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.

LALCHAND DHANALAL V. DHARAMCHAND AND ORS. 20

This case stated that cause of action or grievance must take place when the
plaintiff (in this particular case the administration) 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.

19 AIR 1950 BOM 94.

20 AIR 1965 MP 102
BAPU TATYA V. BALA RAOJEE DESAI21 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.

SMT. USHA RANI BANERJEE & ORS. V. PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY

LTD., MADRAS AND ORS.22 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.

T. KUNHAMMAD AND ORS. V. M. NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRI’S SON 23 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 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 minors.

21 (1920 22 BOMLR 1383), PARA 3.

22 AIR 1983 ALL 27.
23 AIR 1965 KER 8.
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
disability24:

1. 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 necessary25.
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 confusion26. 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

24 Law Commission of India, Eighty Ninth Report on the Limitation Act, 1963.
25 Id. Chapter 16, Section 16-E.
26 Id. Chapter 44, Section 4.
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.