Object and Features of the Limitation Act 1963

In one line

The Limitation Act 1963 fixes the time within which a claim must be brought, and its purpose is not to destroy rights but to compel their timely enforcement.

The object, which is what MU asked

Three maxims are traditionally given, and an answer should name them and then say what each is doing.

Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, it is in the interest of the State that there be an end to litigation. Society cannot function if any transaction may be reopened at any distance of time.

Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, the law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. A person who sits on a claim for twenty years has, in practical terms, abandoned it.

Lex dilationes semper exhorret, the law always abhors delay.

Behind the maxims lie two practical objects worth stating in your own words.

Evidence decays. Witnesses die, memories fade, receipts are lost. A claim tried thirty years after the event is not tried well, and the defendant is the one who suffers, because he must disprove something he can no longer document.

People must be able to close their affairs. A person who has held property or run a business for decades must at some point be safe from stale claims, and be able to sell, mortgage or bequeath what he holds.

So the Act is described as a statute of repose, of peace, and of rest. That phrase is worth using, because it captures what the Act is for better than any description of its mechanics.

The feature that defines the Act: remedy, not right

The Limitation Act bars the REMEDY; it does not extinguish the RIGHT. That single proposition is the most examined feature of the Act, and it has practical consequences.

A time-barred debt is still a debt. It cannot be sued upon, but it does not cease to exist. So:

• if the debtor pays it voluntarily, he cannot recover the money back, because he has paid something he genuinely owed
• a creditor holding security may still be able to realise it, because he is not suing
• a time-barred debt may still be capable of being set off or otherwise relied on, according to the provision under which the question arises

Section 27 is the one exception, and it must always be given with the general rule. At the determination of the period limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to that property is extinguished. So in the case of adverse possession, limitation does destroy the right. See [Acquisition of Ownership by Possession].

That is the shape of a good answer: the Act bars the remedy and not the right, except under section 27, where the right itself is extinguished.