History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.258

v4.c63.258

⁴⁷⁵ Under the Indian Limitation Act, a mortgagor can sue for redemption and possession within 60 years from the time when the right to redeem accrues (Art. 148), though for ordinary suits for possession the period is 12 years; while a pawnor of moveable property has 30 years (Art. 145) from the date of the pawn; if a thing is entrusted to a man for a specific purpose as a trustee then sec. 10 of the Limitation Act provides that no length of time will bar a suit for recovering from him or his legal representatives or voluntary assigns the trust property or its proceeds (upanidhi and nikṣepa may be examples of trust); a suit on behalf of the Secretary of State for India can be brought within 60 years (Art. 149); sections 6-8 provide longer periods for persons who were minors, idiots or lunatics at the time when their rights were invaded. Under the Real Property Limitation Act of 1833 (3 and 4 William IV chap. 27 sections 16 and 17) a suit could be brought within ten years of the time when the disability ceased in the case of minors, lunatics, idiots, *those absent beyond the seas*, but no suit can be (*Continued from the last page*) brought beyond forty years from the starting point. Section 13 of the Indian Limitation Act provides that when the defendant is absent from British India the plaintiff can add the period of defendant's absence to the period prescribed for bringing a suit but does not provide for the rule of Kāt. which allows a longer period for loss of right when a person (who may have to sue) is absent in a foreign country. Under the Civil Law of Rome the rule was '*nullum tempus occurrit regi*' (lapse of time does not bar the right of the crown). Vide *Vyakunta v. Government of Bombay* 12 Bom. H. C. R. (O. C. J.) 1 at p. 217 for this rule and its limitation under modern Indian Law.