The provisions of the Limitation Act relating to the institution of suits by a minor are continued in section 6 to 8. For detailed discussion the provisions of sections 6 to 8, please see Question No. 24.
Problems under Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(1) On the death of a Mohammedan lady, the right to recover her dower descended to her husband and her sons-one of whom was a minor. A suit was brought by the two major sons for recovery of their shares of the dower-debt within three years of the attainment of the majority of the youngest sons. Is the claim within time?
Yes, the suit is within time. Co-heirs under the Mohammedan Law are not joint tenants but only tenant, in common who have no unity of title and so no one can give a valid discharge as regards the shares and interests of the other. Therefore section 7 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the cause and time will begin to run only after the cessation of the disability of the minor.
Image Source: img.washingtonpost.com
(2) B borrows Rs. 2,000 on the basis of a promissory note in January 1940 from a firm of which X, Y and Z are partners. X is a minor and Y is insane. Z can give a valid discharge of the debt without the concurrence of X and Y. In 1945, X attains his majority and Y regains his sanity, and then within a year, X, Y and Z file a suit against B for the recovery of the debt. Is the suit maintainable?
This suit is time-barred and is not maintainable. Z, being capable of giving a valid discharge of the debt without the concurrence of X and Y, time will run against all. The disability of X and Y will not stop running of the time. (Section 7).
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(3) A sells his share in a certain village to B. Under the terms of the wajib-ul-arz, which records, a custom, C, a cosharer, has a right of pre-emption. C, at the time of the sale, is a miner and attains majority two years afterwards, and then files the suit of pre-emption.
The suit is barred by time C cannot claim extension of time on the ground of minority because section 8 clearly lays down that nothing in Section 6 or Section 7 applies to suits to enforce the right of pre-emption.
(4) A borrows Rs. 51OO- from B, payable on demand. B dies a month, after his leaving C, a minor, as his legal representatives. C sues A for the money within a year of his attaining majority but more than five years after the date of the loans. Is the suit within time? The period of limitation is three years from the date of the loan.
A. The suit is not within time. In this case, period of limitation is to run from the date of the loan and as at that time B father C, was alive who could bring a suit to recover the loan, the subsequent disability of B could not stop running of the time. (Section 9).