Limitation act : Practice Questions and Answers

Article 121 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside an abatement under the same Code. According to this article, thelimitation period for setting aside an abatement is 60 days from the date of abatement.

Article 73 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the limitation period for seeking compensation for false imprisonment. According to this article, thelimitation period for filing a suit for compensation for false imprisonment is one year.

When the prescribed period of limitation for any application is expiring on a holiday , the law allows for the application to be made on the day when the court re-opens.

In Craft Centre v. Koncherry Coir Factories (1990), the Kerala High Court emphasized that the plaintiff has the duty to convince the Court that the suit is within the limitation period.

Is true, but R is false. *The assertion correctly identifies that the acquisition of ownership by possession, also known as adverse possession, offers a mechanism for resolving disputes over property rights that arise from long-term possession.

Section 23 deals with suits for compensation for acts that do not give rise to a cause of action unless some specific injury actually results. Nature of the Suit: This section applies to suits for compensation for acts that do not immediately give rise to a cause of action.

'Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt' * Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt: This Latin maxim translates to "the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.

Section 3 of limitation Act 1963 deals with Bar of limitation. (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.

Section 22. * Section 22 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides for Continuing breaches and torts.

Ninety days. * Article 120 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides for a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), to have the legalrepresentative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent, made a party.

Specifically, this is covered underSection 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in India. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act deals with a suit by a person who is dispossessed of immovable property without his consent and without the authority of law.

THE SCHEDULE (PERIODS OF LIMITATION) [See sections 2(j) and 3] * PART IV.—SUITS RELATING TO DECREES AND INSTRUMENTS 59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract. | Three years.

Section 14 Section 14 of the legislation discusses the principle of not including certain periods when calculating the time limit (also known as the "period of limitation") for initiating lawsuits or applications.

Section 27 of the Limitation Act states that when the limited period for initiating a suit for possession of any property expires without the person taking legal action, their right to the property is extinguished.

Section 22 of the Limitation Act deals with Continuing breaches and torts. Continuing Breach of Contract or Tort: Applies when a breach of contract or a tort (civil wrong) is ongoing and not a one-time occurrence.

The date of his addition. Section 21* of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant.

THE SCHEDULE (PERIODS OF LIMITATION) [See sections 2(j) and 3] * PART IV.—SUITS RELATING TO DECREES AND INSTRUMENTS 59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract. | Three years.

0 years. * Article 61 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides for the limitation period prescribed for filling a suit by a mortgagor to recover possession of immovable property mortgaged.

Ll of the above As per Section 2(a) "applicant" includes not only the petitioner but also any person from or through whom an applicant derives his right to apply, and any person whose estate is represented by the applicant as executor, administrator, or other representative.

In Collector and Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Darshan Singh and others (AIR 1999) , the court held that the non-availability of the case file to the State counsel or Panel lawyer is not considered a valid ground for condonation of inordinate delay.