Case: Smt. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan, AIR 1960 SC 335
Facts of the Case
- A suit was filed by the plaintiff to enforce a right after the expiry of the limitation period.
- The plaintiff claimed that although the time had passed, the right continued to exist in principle.
- The court had to determine whether the expiration of limitation merely barred the legal remedy or extinguished the right itself.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the right was entirely extinguished due to limitation.
- Whether the remedy alone was barred, but the substantive right remained intact.
- How the Limitation Act should be interpreted in such contexts.
Principles Associated with It
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the law of limitation bars the judicial remedy and not the underlying right itself.
- Unless a statute expressly states that the right is extinguished, limitation only affects the procedural enforcement.
- The maxim “limitation bars the remedy but does not destroy the right” was reaffirmed.
Judgement
- The court held that limitation operates to bar the remedy in court, not the right itself.
- The right may still subsist and could be recognized in other forums, such as in equity or arbitration.
- The suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation, but the judgment clarified that the plaintiff’s substantive right wasn’t legally destroyed.
Case: Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. v. Municipal Committee, Dhamangaon, AIR 1966 SC 249
Facts of the Case
- A suit was filed for recovery of tax-related dues, challenged on grounds of delay.
- The defendant argued the suit was barred by limitation and hence the claim was no longer valid.
- The matter raised the nature and scope of limitation under statutory interpretation.
Issues in the Case
- Whether delay in approaching the court nullifies the underlying claim.
- Whether the court can grant relief once the period prescribed by the Limitation Act expires.
- The impact of limitation on the recognition of the right.
Principles Associated with It
- The Supreme Court clarified that the Limitation Act prescribes time limits only for enforcing rights through courts.
- It does not render the right non-existent unless the statute says so.
- It reaffirmed the principle that limitation bars the remedy, not the right.
Judgement
- The court ruled in favor of the defendant on procedural grounds due to the lapse of time.
- However, it clearly stated that the substantive right was not extinguished, only the remedy through civil court was barred.
- This judgment reaffirmed the interpretative approach to limitation statutes.
Case: Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 346
Facts of the Case
- The Maharaja filed a suit to reclaim possession of certain immovable properties.
- The State contended that the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act.
- The plaintiff argued that his right of ownership had not been extinguished despite the procedural bar.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the right to property continued to exist despite the delay in filing suit.
- Whether limitation affected ownership or just legal enforcement.
- Whether a constitutional right could be barred by statutory limitation.
Principles Associated with It
- The Supreme Court held that ownership rights, especially in immovable property, are not extinguished merely because of procedural delay.
- Limitation affects legal action, not the existence of the right unless the statute explicitly states so.
- The phrase “limitation bars remedy but does not destroy the right” was again central to the reasoning.
Judgement
- The court dismissed the suit due to limitation but recognized the continued legal recognition of ownership.
- It stated that the Limitation Act did not affect the title or possession unless clearly provided by statute.
- The right was not nullified, only the court enforcement of that right was restricted.
Case: Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 328
Facts of the Case
- The petitioner challenged certain tax assessments and sought a refund after the limitation period expired.
- The government argued that the claim was time-barred and thus invalid.
- The petitioner argued that the right to claim refund existed independently of limitation.
Issues in the Case
- Whether a refund claim could be enforced after limitation expired.
- Whether constitutional remedies are subject to limitations under statutory law.
- Whether the court should grant equitable relief despite statutory bar.
Principles Associated with It
- The court emphasized the importance of limitation in ensuring finality and certainty in legal claims.
- Even when a right is constitutional or statutory, the enforcement must adhere to procedural time limits.
- Yet, it acknowledged the theoretical survival of the right after limitation, subject to enforceability.
Judgement
- The court held that the petitioner’s claim was time-barred and not maintainable.
- However, it stated that the right to claim refund existed but could not be enforced through the court due to statutory bar.
- This reaffirmed that limitation blocks remedy, not the legal right unless explicitly stated.
