Vol. 12 · pages 406–410

385THE LAW OF LIMITATION Ques. This decision goes to the length of laying down that parties can vary the Law of Limitation by private agreement. This seems to overlook the provisions of sections 28 and 23 of the Contract Act. (2) Proceedings under the Companies Act. When a Company is being wound up and a liquidator is appointed to carry on the affairs of such Company, Section 186 of the Company’s Act provides that the liquidator may make an application to the Court for an order upon a person “to pay any moneys due from him to the Company.” Ordinarily there would have to be a suit. But to avoid multiplicity of suits this special proceedings is permitted by law. Question is whether Limitation applies to such proceedings. It has been held that “money due” in section 186 meansmoneys due and recoverable in law, i.e., moneys not time-barred. This means that the Law of Limitation applies to such proceedings. 60 I. A. 13 (23) (3) Proceedings under the Income Tax Act. The Civil Courts in India have no jurisdiction in matters of public revenue. They can have such jurisdiction only if a particular Revenue Act invests them with such jurisdiction. For example a provision will be found in section 66(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act of 1922. Under the section, a party aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Officer in the matter of assessment may apply to him for stating a case to the High Court and if he refuses may apply to the High Court for an order compelling the Commissioner to state a case and refer it to the High Court. There is a time-limit for such an application. But the Law of Limitation does not apply to it. The time-limit is the time-limit prescribed by the Income Tax Act and not by the Law of Limitation. (4) Proceedings before the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, provides for Compensation to be paid to workmen for injuries caused to them

386 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in the course of their employment. The cases are heard by a Commissioner. The Commissioner is a special tribunal and not a Court and therefore the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before him. This does not mean that the claim for compensation for injury can be prosecuted before him at any time. That would be so if the Act had made no provision for a time-limit. As the Act has presented six months as the time-limit, suits have to be brought within that period. (5) Proceedings under Registration Act. (1) Presentation of Documents—4 months. (2) Appearance of Parties for admitting Documents—4 months. 3. Criminal Proceedings 1. Criminal Proceedings are generally instituted in the name of the Crown because they involve a breach of the King’s peace. 2. It is a maxim of Constitutional Law that lapse of time does not affect the right of the King. 3. That being so the Law of Limitation does not apply to criminal prosecutions. 4. Two things may be noted : (1) There are many Acts which prescribe limits of time for institution of prosecution under those Acts. E.g. Government of India Act, Section 128 : Opium Act, Customs Act, Salt and Excise Acts and Police Act. (2) Limitation Act, although it does not provide for any timelimits for criminal prosecutions, it does provide for appeals under the Cr. P. C. 4. Civil Proceedings (i) With regard to suits different kinds of suits have been specified in different Articles. There is also a general residuary Article No. 120 which is made to apply to any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule. The Act, therefore, applies to all suits. (ii) With regard to appeals there are two Courts to which appeals can lie in India—(i) The Court of a District Judge and (ii) The High Court. The Limitation Act specifies appeals to both these Courts and therefore, it can be said that the Law of Limitation applies to all appeals.

387THE LAW OF LIMITATION (iii) With regard to applications, different kinds of applications are enumerated in the different articles in the Schedule. As in the case of articles relating to suits there is also an Article 181 for applications for which no period of limitation is prescribed elsewhere in the schedule or by section 48 of the C. P. C. But almost all High Courts have held that the operation of this Act is to be restricted to applications under the C. P. C. only. That being so it is clear that the Limitation Act does not apply to all applications. For instance it does not apply to : (i) Applications for the grant of probate letters of administrations succession certificates. (ii) Applications under the Rules of the High Court 32 Bom. 1 48 Cal. 817 46 Cal. 249. (iii) Applications under a Local or Special Act (unless such Act provides for it). These not being matters dealt with by the C. P. Code. In respect of persons 1. The general rule is that the plea of limitation applies to every Plaintiff. 2. Originally, limitation did not apply to the Crown when it sued as a Plaintiff, on the ground that lapse of time did not affect the Crown. This maxim of Constitutional Law although it governs criminal prosecutions has been negatived so far as civil proceedings by the Crown are concerned by Article 149 of the Limitation Act which applies to every kind of suit brought by Government, and prescribes 60 years as the timelimit. Suits against Government must be brought within the ordinary time-limits. 15 Mad. 315. Similarly, suits by private persons claiming through Government are also subject to the ordinary time-limit prescribed by the Act. This was always the rule. It was not always the rule for Government to bring a suit within any prescribed time. This

388 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES has now been altered. It can, therefore, be said that as a rule the Law of Limitation applies to all persons whether they are private persons or corporate bodies of Governments, and that the plea of limitation is available to every Defendant as against every Plaintiff whether that Plaintiff is a private person or a Government. 3. The plea of limitation is available to every Defendant. To this rule there are certain exceptions. 37 Bom.—S.R. 471 Section 10. I. The defence of limitation is not available to a person in whom property has become vested in trust for any specific purpose nor is it available to his legal representatives or assigns (not being assigns for valuable consideration), in a suit for recovery of the property or the proceeds thereof or for an account of such property. This section is to be applied to an express trust as distinguished from an implied or constructive trust. A trustee of an implied or constructive trust can take the defence of limitation. Distinction between an Express Trust and Implied or Constructive Trusts. Persons, therefore, who are holding a fiduciary position are not trustees within the meaning of Section 10 ; E.g. Agent, Manager, Factor, Benamidar, Executor or Administrator, Banker, Surviving partner, Director of a Company Liquidator of a Company, Karta or Manager of a joint Hindu family. Secondly Section 10 is applicable only in cases of persons “in whom property has become vested* in trust for a specific purpose” 44 Mad. 277(281-2). What is Specific Purpose ? A specific purpose is a purpose that is actually and specifically defined in the document by * What is meant by vested ? The following suits are excluded — (1) Suits seeking to make the trustee liable for what he might have received. (2) Suits to enforce Plaintiffs’ personal right to manage trust properties. (3) Where there is an invalid trust, a suit to recover the property from the trustees in the enforcement of a resulting trust—20 Bom, 511. (4) Suits for compensation for breach of trust— 581. A. 279 (297).

389THE LAW OF LIMITATION which the trust is created for a purpose which from the specified terms can be certainly affirmed. 49 I. A. 37 (43) 58 I. A. 1 That being so even a trustee de son tort would fall within this Section. Meaning of a trustee de son tort. Explanation. —Hindu, Mohammedan and Charitable endowments are declared to be express trusts and their managers express trustees. Thirdly.—Section 10 not only applies to the defaulting trustee himself, but also applies to his legal representatives and assigns except assigns for valuable consideration. Purchasers for value from a defaulting trustee are protected and they can plead limitation. Whether purchasers from a trustee must in addition to being purchasers for value should also be purchasers without notice of trust is a point on which the Act is silent. Judicial decisions on this point are, however, in conflict. Section 29 (3) II. The Limitation Act does not apply to parties litigating under the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869). (Page left blank—ed.) As against a Special Law 1. Besides this General Law of Limitation there are other special or local laws which also prescribe time-limits for suits, appeals or applications. In case there is a difference between the time-limits fixed by the general and special law, question is which law is to prevail. 2. The answer to this question is given in Section 29. According to the Section the special law will prevail over the general law. 3. Section 29 also provides for the applicability and nonapplicability of the other Sections of the Limitation Act in cases of conflict between the general and special law as to time-limit. 4. According to Section 29, in cases of conflict the provisions of Sections 4, 9 to 18 and 22 of the Limitation Act will apply