“Limitation Bars Remedy but Does Not Destroy Right” – A Legal Analysis

The law of limitation plays a significant role in maintaining legal certainty. It ensures that claims are brought forward within a reasonable time. The famous maxim, “Limitation bars remedy but does not destroy the right”, lies at the heart of this concept. This principle suggests that even though a person loses the legal avenue to enforce a right after a certain period, the right itself does not vanish.

This essay analyzes the meaning, scope, and implications of this doctrine in Indian law. It also explores judicial interpretations and exceptions. The Law of Limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 serves as the framework for this discussion.

Understanding the Concept of Limitation in Law

What Is the Law of Limitation?

The Law of Limitation prescribes the time limits within which a legal action must be initiated. After the expiry of this time, courts generally refuse to entertain a suit, appeal, or application. The purpose is to promote discipline and prevent stale claims from disturbing settled matters.

The Limitation Act, 1963 governs the rules regarding limitation in civil matters in India. It defines the time frames for various types of legal proceedings.

Legal Maxim: Limitation Bars Remedy

The principle “Limitation bars the remedy but not the right” means that though the claimant’s right continues to exist morally or naturally, they cannot enforce it in a court of law once the limitation period ends.

Limitation Act, 1963 – Key Provisions

Section 3: Bar of Limitation

Section 3 of the Limitation Act makes it mandatory for courts to dismiss suits filed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period. Even if the defendant does not raise the defense of limitation, the court must apply it.

Key Point: The court does not have discretion to extend limitation unless expressly provided.

Section 27: Extinguishment of Right to Property

While most rights remain intact after the limitation expires, Section 27 creates an exception. It states that in cases concerning possession of property, once the limitation expires, the right itself is extinguished.

Example: If a person fails to recover possession of immovable property within 12 years, their ownership right itself ceases under law.

Nature of Rights and Remedies

Difference Between Right and Remedy

• Right is a legal entitlement a person holds.
• Remedy is the legal process to enforce that right through the courts.

The Limitation Act affects remedies, not substantive rights, except in cases like property under Section 27.

Example for Clarity

If ‘A’ lends ₹10,000 to ‘B’, and B does not repay within 3 years, A loses the legal remedy to sue. But A still has a moral right to recover the money. A cannot compel payment through court but can accept it voluntarily.

Judicial Interpretation of the Principle

Indian courts have discussed the maxim “Limitation bars remedy but does not destroy the right” in several landmark cases.

Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Bombay (1958)

The Supreme Court held that the law of limitation extinguishes only the remedy and not the right itself unless expressly provided.

Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1966)

In this case, the court ruled that even after the limitation period ends, the right remains alive for moral or voluntary satisfaction.

P.K. Kutty Anuja Raja v. State of Kerala (2001)

The Kerala High Court clarified that unless the statute extinguishes the right itself (as in Section 27), the right continues despite being time-barred.

Exception: Extinguishment of Rights under Section 27

Section 27 is a critical deviation from the general principle. It leads to the extinction of title in property cases.

Illustration

If X illegally occupies Y’s land and Y does not file a suit for possession within 12 years, Y’s ownership gets extinguished under Section 27. In such a case, not only is the remedy lost, but the substantive right of ownership is also extinguished.

This principle applies mainly to immovable property and is rooted in the idea that long, undisturbed possession becomes lawful after a point.

Applicability in Different Legal Areas

1. Contractual Claims

In breach of contract cases, the limitation period is generally three years from the date of breach. After that, the remedy to sue ends, but the right to recover remains unless explicitly waived.

2. Tort Claims

In torts, the limitation usually begins from the date of injury. Again, if the period lapses, the legal remedy ends, but the duty breached may morally persist.

3. Debt Recovery

Debt recovery cases often get affected by limitation. Once time-barred, the lender cannot initiate legal action, but voluntary repayment by the debtor is valid.

4. Consumer Protection Cases

Though governed by special laws, consumer disputes also adhere to limitation periods, usually two years from the cause of action. The remedy becomes unavailable after that time, though the defect or grievance may still exist.

Limitation and Acknowledgment

Section 18: Acknowledgment in Writing

If a debtor acknowledges the debt before the limitation period expires, the clock resets, and a fresh period begins.

Section 19: Part Payment

Part payment of a debt also resets the limitation clock, offering the creditor another chance to seek legal remedy.

These sections aim to balance the rights of creditors and protection of debtors against stale claims.

Limitation in Equity and Natural Justice

Even though limitation laws bar remedies, equity may still recognize the underlying rights. For example, in family disputes or maintenance cases, courts often allow claims beyond limitation if justice demands it.

However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that equity cannot override statutory limitations unless the statute permits it.

Law Commission of India on Limitation

The Law Commission, in multiple reports, emphasized that limitation does not deny justice but promotes it by ensuring timely redressal. It ensures that parties do not sleep over their rights and that evidence remains fresh.

The Commission clarified that rights should not be confused with their legal enforceability, which depends on time-bound action.

Real-Life Examples

Scenario	Right Survives	Remedy Available?
Debt unpaid for 4 years	Yes	No (Unless acknowledgment)
Property not claimed for 12 years	No	No (Right extinguished)
Injury due to negligence, suit after 5 years	Yes	No
Divorce claimed after 10 years of cause	Yes	Depends on statute

Criticism and Counterpoints

Critics argue that the Limitation Act sometimes leads to injustice by disallowing genuine claims due to procedural delays. For example, a poor litigant unaware of legal timelines might lose their remedy despite having a valid claim.

However, the law provides exceptions under Sections 4 to 24, including:

• Section 5: Condonation of delay for sufficient cause
• Section 6: Legal disability (minority, insanity)
• Section 14: Exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings in wrong forums

These provisions reflect a balance between justice and legal certainty.