UNIT 2- LEGAL ETHICS

The Registration Act, 1908

1. Introduction, Objectives, and Scope of the Act
The Act is a consolidating statute that aims to provide a transparent and reliable
public record system for legal rights and obligations related to property.
• Public Notice: Registration serves as a public notice to all persons
regarding legal rights and obligations affecting a property, giving
transparency to the transaction.
• Prevention of Fraud and Forgery: By providing a solemn procedure and
public records, it minimises the chances of fraud and the creation of forged
documents.
• Assurance of Genuineness: The process of verification by a government
officer provides a conclusive guarantee of the document's authenticity and
execution.
• Perpetuation of Evidence: The registered documents are preserved in
government offices, offering security in case original deeds are lost or
damaged.
Key Case: In Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, the
Supreme Court emphasized that immovable property can be legally transferred
only by a registered deed of conveyance, and 'GPA sales' (General Power of
Attorney sales) do not convey valid title.
2. Documents Requiring Compulsory Registration (Section 17)
Section 17 mandates the compulsory registration of specific non-
testamentary instruments.
• Instruments of Gift: Deeds of gift of immovable property, irrespective
of their value.
• Instruments Affecting Immovable Property (Value ₹100+): Non-
testamentary instruments that create, declare, assign, limit, or
extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property with a
value of one hundred rupees or more.
• Leases: Leases of immovable property for any term exceeding one year
or reserving a yearly rent.
• Contracts for Transfer (Section 53A TPA): Contracts for the transfer
of immovable property for the purpose of part performance under
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
 • Court Decrees: Any non-testamentary instrument that transfers or
assigns a court decree or order affecting immovable property (subject
to exceptions)
3. Documents with Optional Registration (Section 18)
Section 18 lists documents whose registration is optional. Parties may choose to
register them for added authenticity and legal protection. These include:
• Instruments related to immovable property valued at less than one hundred
rupees.
• Instruments related to movable property.
• Wills (which can be presented for registration or deposited at any time).
• Leases of immovable property for terms not exceeding one year.
4. Time and Place for Registration (Sections 23-31)
These sections lay down strict rules regarding the procedural aspects of
registration.
• Section 23 (Time Limit): Documents (other than a will) must be presented
for registration within four months from the date of execution.
• Section 24 (Execution by several persons): The four-month period runs
from the date of each execution for documents signed by multiple parties
at different times.
• Section 25 (Provision for delay): A delay in presentation of up to an
additional four months can be condoned by the District Registrar, on an
application showing "urgent necessity or unavoidable accident," and
payment of a fine up to ten times the registration fee.
• Section 28 (Place of Registration): Documents related to immovable
property must be presented in the Sub-Registrar's office within whose local
jurisdiction the whole or a portion of the property is situated.
• Section 29 (Place for Other Documents): Documents not related to
immovable property may be registered in any Sub-Registrar's office where
the execution took place or where the parties agree.
• Section 31 (Registration at Private Residence): The registering officer
can attend at a private residence for registration in special cases (e.g.,
illness).
5. Effects of Registration and Non-Registration (Sections 47-50)
The legal consequences of registration are significant.
Effects of Registration
• Section 47 (Operation from Date of Execution): A registered document
takes effect from the date of its execution, not from the date of registration.
This principle determines the priority of competing claims.
• Section 48 (Priority over Oral Agreements): Registered documents
generally take precedence over subsequent oral agreements or declarations
relating to the same property.
• Section 50 (Priority over Unregistered Documents): Compulsorily
registrable documents that are registered have priority over unregistered
documents concerning the same property (even if the unregistered
document was executed earlier).
Effects of Non-Registration (Section 49)
Non-registration of a compulsorily registrable document leads to serious legal
disabilities.
• Inoperative on Property Rights: The document does not affect any
immovable property to which it relates.
• Inadmissible in Evidence: It cannot be received as evidence of the
transaction in court.
Proviso to Section 49 and Case Law:
The proviso to Section 49 allows an unregistered document to be used for
a "collateral purpose" or as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific
performance.
• "Collateral purpose" means a purpose other than the creation,
declaration, assignment, etc., of rights in the immovable property itself. For
example, an unregistered lease deed is inadmissible to prove the terms of
the tenancy, but it can be admitted to show the nature of possession (i.e.,
lawful entry, not a trespasser).
• In S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, the Supreme Court held that an
unregistered sale deed can be admitted as evidence of an oral agreement of
sale in a suit for specific performance.
By following the Registration Act's requirements, parties ensure the legal
certainty, security, and enforceability of their property transactions.
 The Limitation Act, 1963
Introduction
The concept of limitation forms a cornerstone of any legal system, as it aims to
ensure that legal disputes are brought before the courts within a reasonable period
of time. The Limitation Act, 1963, is a comprehensive legislation in India that
consolidates and amends the law relating to the limitation of suits, appeals, and
applications. It prescribes specific time limits within which a person can approach
a court for redressal of a grievance or enforcement of a right. Once this prescribed
period lapses, the right to seek judicial remedy is barred, thereby providing
finality and certainty to legal proceedings.
The idea behind limitation laws is not merely procedural convenience but also
public policy. It is based on the maxim “Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” —
meaning, “it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to
litigation.” Endless litigation is contrary to justice and social order. The law
presumes that a person who does not assert his rights within the prescribed period
has abandoned them, or that evidence relating to such disputes may no longer be
reliable due to the passage of time. Thus, limitation statutes encourage diligence
and discourage stale claims.
Historical Background
The law of limitation in India traces its origins to the British colonial period.
The first Limitation Act was enacted in 1859, followed by successive revisions in
1871, 1877, and 1908. The Limitation Act of 1908 remained in force for over
five decades but was found inadequate due to its complexity, scattered provisions,
and inconsistent interpretation. The need for uniformity and simplification led to
the enactment of the Limitation Act, 1963, which came into force on 1st
January 1964, based on the recommendations of the Law Commission of India
in its Third Report (1956).
Object and Purpose of the Limitation Act
The primary objective of the Limitation Act is not to destroy rights but to bar
remedies. It does not extinguish the right itself (except in certain cases like
Section 27), but it prevents the enforcement of that right through legal action after
the expiry of the prescribed period. The main purposes served by the Act include:
1. Ensuring legal certainty: The Act provides a clear time frame within
which disputes must be brought before the courts, ensuring predictability
in legal affairs.
2. Preventing injustice due to stale claims: Over time, evidence may be lost,
witnesses may die, or memories may fade; hence, it is essential that claims
are made promptly.
 3. Encouraging diligence: The Act promotes promptness and discourages
negligent or dormant claimants from approaching courts after long delays.
4. Ensuring public policy and judicial efficiency: By preventing indefinite
litigation, the Act helps in maintaining social peace and judicial efficiency.
In Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh (1973) 2 SCC 705, the Supreme Court aptly
observed that “rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties,
but they fix a lifespan for legal remedies.” Therefore, the law does not favor
indolent litigants; it assists those who are vigilant about their rights.
Dual Character of the Limitation Act
The Limitation Act, 1963, therefore, operates in two dimensions:
1. As a Procedural Law: It regulates the filing of suits, appeals, and
applications, condonation of delay, exclusion of time, and
acknowledgment of liability. These provisions ensure fairness, equity, and
flexibility within the judicial process.
2. As a Substantive Law: It affects certain legal rights, especially in cases of
prescription and adverse possession, where the law confers ownership or
extinguishes existing rights after a specified period.

I. Procedural Law under the Limitation Act

Procedural provisions govern how the courts handle suits filed beyond the
prescribed period and under what circumstances delays or disabilities can be
condoned or excluded.

1. Section 5 – Condonation of Delay

Text of Section 5:
Any appeal or application may be admitted after the prescribed period if the
appellant or applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Key Principles
• The court has discretionary power to condone delay if “sufficient cause” is
shown.
• The expression “sufficient cause” is liberally interpreted to advance
justice.
• This section applies only to appeals and applications, not to suits.
Case Laws
 1. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107
The Supreme Court emphasized that a liberal approach must be adopted
when dealing with applications for condonation of delay. The expression
“sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so that substantial
justice is not defeated by technicalities.
2. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123
The Court held that length of delay is immaterial; the acceptability of the
explanation is the only criterion. The primary consideration is whether the
delay was bona fide.
3. State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1
SCC 366
The Court observed that negligence or inaction cannot be condoned merely
on equitable grounds; the explanation must be reasonable and convincing.
Example
If a person receives a judgment copy late due to postal delay and files an appeal
after the limitation period, the delay can be condoned if the court is satisfied that
the cause was genuine and not due to negligence.

2. Sections 6 to 9 – Legal Disability

These provisions deal with situations where the person entitled to institute a suit
or application suffers from a legal disability such as minority, insanity, or
idiocy.
Section 6 – Legal Disability
If a person entitled to sue or apply for execution is a minor, insane, or an idiot at
the time the right to sue accrues, he may institute the suit within the same period
after the disability ceases.
Section 7 – Disability of One of Several Persons
When one of several persons entitled to sue is under a disability, the others can
file the suit. However, if all are under disability, limitation begins when one of
them becomes capable.
Section 8 – Special Limitation
The period cannot be extended beyond three years from the date when the
disability ceases, even if the disability continues or recurs.
Section 9 – Continuous Running of Time
Once the limitation period begins to run, it continues, and no subsequent
disability stops it.
Case Laws
1. Rama Shankar v. Om Prakash (1985) AIR All 89
The court held that the benefit of Section 6 is available only when the
person is under disability at the time when the cause of action arises.
2. Darshan Singh v. Gurdev Singh (1999) 4 SCC 390
It was observed that when the disability ceases, the person must act
within the prescribed period; otherwise, the benefit of extension is lost.
Example
If A’s right to sue accrues in 2010 but he is a minor until 2018, the limitation
period begins in 2018. However, under Section 8, he cannot extend it beyond
three years after attaining majority.

3. Sections 14–15 – Exclusion of Time in Certain Cases

These sections provide for exclusion of certain time periods when calculating
limitation, ensuring that a bona fide litigant is not penalized for technical
mistakes.
Section 14 – Exclusion of Time Spent in Good Faith in Wrong Court
If a plaintiff prosecutes a case in good faith in a court without jurisdiction, the
time spent in that proceeding shall be excluded from the period of limitation.
Essential Conditions:
• Prosecution in good faith
• Due diligence shown
• Proceedings in a court without jurisdiction
Case Law:
Roshanlal v. R.B. Mohan Singh (1975) 4 SCC 628
The Supreme Court held that time spent in bona fide prosecution of a case in a
wrong forum must be excluded, provided the plaintiff acted with due diligence.
Section 15 – Exclusion of Time During Legal Proceedings or Injunction
If the filing of a suit is stayed by an injunction or order, the period during which
such order remains in force is excluded.
Case Law:
Siraj-ul-Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Waqf (1959) SCR 1287
The Court observed that exclusion under Section 15 applies only when the
plaintiff was legally restrained from filing the suit.
Example
If a person files a suit in a civil court that later declares it has no jurisdiction,
and he then files it in the proper court, the time spent in the wrong court is
excluded from the limitation period.

4. Sections 18–19 – Acknowledgment in Writing

These sections deal with the effect of acknowledgment of liability on the
computation of limitation.
Section 18 – Acknowledgment of Liability
If there is a written and signed acknowledgment of liability made before the
expiration of the limitation period, a fresh period of limitation begins from the
date of acknowledgment.
Essentials:
• Acknowledgment must be in writing and signed
• Made before expiry of limitation
• Must indicate the existence of a jural relationship
Case Law:
Tilak Ram v. Nathu (1967) 3 SCR 403
The acknowledgment must indicate an admission of existing liability and not a
mere promise to pay in future.
Section 19 – Effect of Payment
If payment on account of a debt or interest is made before expiration of
limitation, a new limitation period starts from the date of such payment.
Case Law:
Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad (1951) SCR 1277
The Court held that part payment of a debt before the limitation period extends
the limitation, provided it is acknowledged in writing.
Example
If a debtor pays a small amount towards an old debt within the limitation period
and signs a receipt, a fresh limitation period begins from the date of that
payment.
II. Substantive Law under the Limitation Act
While most provisions are procedural, certain sections — particularly Sections
25, 27, and 29 — have substantive effects, as they affect the right itself and not
merely the remedy.

1. Section 25 – Law of Prescription

This section recognizes the concept of prescriptive rights, i.e., rights acquired
by long, uninterrupted use.
Essence:
After continuous and peaceful enjoyment of property or right for the period
prescribed by law, such enjoyment confers a prescriptive title or right.
Illustration:
If a person has enjoyed an easement (like a right of way) openly and peacefully
for 20 years, it becomes a legal right.
Case Law:
Raj Rani v. State of Haryana (1997) 6 SCC 326 – The Supreme Court
reaffirmed that rights of prescription are substantive rights that accrue through
continuous possession or use for the statutory period.

2. Section 27 – Extinguishment of Right to Property (Adverse Possession)

Text of Section 27:
At the expiration of the period prescribed for instituting a suit for possession of
any property, the right to such property shall be extinguished.
This section is substantive, as it not only bars the remedy but also extinguishes
the owner’s right and transfers ownership to the person in adverse possession.
Essentials of Adverse Possession
• Possession must be actual, open, and hostile to the true owner
• Continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period
• Knowledge of the true owner is presumed
Case Laws:
1. Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779
The possessor must show hostile possession that is peaceful, open, and
continuous for the prescribed period.
 2. P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59
The Court clarified that adverse possession has a dual nature — it
extinguishes the true owner’s title and simultaneously confers ownership
on the possessor.
Example
If a person occupies land without permission and remains in continuous
possession for 12 years without challenge, the true owner’s title is extinguished
under Section 27.

3. Section 29 – Saving Clause

Text of Section 29:
This section preserves the operation of special or local laws prescribing
different limitation periods. It ensures that such special laws prevail unless
expressly excluded.
Essentials
• Where a special or local law prescribes a different limitation period, its
provisions apply.
• Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply unless expressly excluded.
Case Law:
Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133
The Supreme Court held that exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 must be express or
implied. In election petitions, the Representation of the People Act was held to
exclude these provisions by necessary implication.
Example
If a taxation statute prescribes its own limitation period for appeals, Section 29
ensures that this special period prevails over the general limitation schedule.