1919 (2) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed: Limitation Act's Section 6 Time Extension Applies Only to Minors, Not Transferees or Assignees.

The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the extension of time provisions under the Limitation Act, specifically Section 6, apply only to ... - Issues:1. Extension of time claim as transferee from a minor.2. Interpretation of provisions of the Limitation Act regarding extension of time.3. Applicability of Section 15 of the Limitation Act on pending attachment.4. Acknowledgment of subsisting liability.5. Applicability of Section 6 of the Limitation Act to assignee of a minor.Extension of Time Claim as Transferee from a Minor:The judgment addresses the appellant's claim for an extension of time as a transferee from a minor. The appellant contends that he is entitled to the same extension of time the minor would have had, or alternatively, to three years from when his ownership began. The judgment explains that the appellant's alternative contention lacks justification under the Limitation Act, specifically Section 6(3), which extends time only for the disabled person and not for the appellant as a transferee during the minor's lifetime. The judgment emphasizes that personal privilege under the Act is not transferable, and the majority view supports the notion that such privileges are personal and do not extend to transferees.Interpretation of Limitation Act Provisions:The judgment delves into the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Limitation Act concerning the appellant's argument. It highlights that the wording of Section 6(1) refers to the person entitled to sue, indicating a singular focus that does not support the appellant's broad construction. The judgment also discusses Section 8 and the definition of 'plaintiff' in Section 2, emphasizing that the Act is structured around the person entitled to sue, not transferees or assignees.Applicability of Section 15 of the Limitation Act:Regarding the applicability of Section 15 of the Limitation Act on pending attachment, the judgment dismisses the appellant's contention based on precedents that clarify an attachment does not fall under the purview of 'an injunction or order' in Section 15. The judgment cites relevant cases to support this conclusion and rejects the argument that the attachment period saved the limitation.Acknowledgment of Subsisting Liability:The judgment also addresses the issue of acknowledgment of subsisting liability as a means to save limitation. It analyzes the content of the acknowledgment presented by the appellant and concludes that it does not acknowledge any existing liability, thereby failing to meet the criteria outlined in the Act for acknowledgment.Applicability of Section 6 of the Limitation Act to Assignee of a Minor:The judgment extensively discusses the applicability of Section 6 of the Limitation Act to the assignee of a minor. It references past decisions and the legislative history to argue that the Act's exemptions for minors are personal privileges that do not extend to bare transferees. The judgment emphasizes that the Act's provisions do not contemplate assignees benefiting from the extended period of limitation granted to minors, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on this analysis.