Limitation Act 1963 Section 7: Disability of One of Several Persons
7. Disability of one of several persons.—Where one of several persons jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is under any such disability, and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against them all; but, where no such discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them until one of them becomes capable of giving such discharge without the concurrence of the others or until the disability has ceased.
Explanation I.—This section applies to a discharge from every kind of liability, including a liability in respect of any immovable property.
Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, the Manager of a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law shall be deemed to be capable of giving a discharge without the concurrence of the other members of the family only if he is in management of the joint family property.
Explanation of section 7
Wondering how legal disability affects joint rights? Section 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963 tackles this. It applies when multiple people—like co-owners or heirs—are jointly entitled to file a suit or execute a decree, but one is under a disability (e.g., a minor or insane person, as per Section 6). There are two scenarios:
If a capable person can settle the matter (give a “discharge”) without the disabled person’s input, the limitation period runs normally for everyone—disability doesn’t pause it.
If no one can act without the disabled person’s consent, time stops for all until the disability ends (e.g., the minor turns 18) or someone gains authority to act alone.
Explanation I clarifies that “discharge” covers all liabilities, including property disputes.
Explanation II adds a twist: in a Mitakshara Hindu joint family, the manager (karta) can act alone if managing the property, bypassing disabled members. Tied to the Concurrent List (Entry 13), Section 7 ensures fairness in joint claims while preventing indefinite delays under the Limitation Act 1963 Section 7.
Key Points:
- Governs joint rights when one person is disabled (minor, insane, etc.).
- Time runs if a discharge is possible without the disabled person.
- Time pauses if discharge requires everyone and one is disabled.
- Mitakshara karta can act alone if managing family property (Explanation II).
Examples:
Two brothers co-own land with a 3-year suit limit. One’s a minor, but the elder can settle alone. Time runs from the start—file by year 3.
Three heirs need to file, but one’s insane and all must agree. The 3-year limit waits until the insane heir recovers or dies.
Case Laws:
Kailash Chandra v. Mukundi Lal (May 7, 2002): Supreme Court ruled that if a co-owner can discharge a debt independently, Section 7 doesn’t halt time (SCC Online: AIR 2002 SC 829).
Jawahar Lal v. Mathura Prasad (March 31, 1962): Allahabad High Court held that time stops for all joint holders if a minor’s consent is essential (SCC Online: AIR 1962 All 476).
Visual Aid:
Flowchart:
Joint Right → One Disabled? → Yes: Discharge Possible Without Them? → Yes: Time Runs | No: Time Pauses Until Disability Ends or Authority Gained.
Pro Tip: Check who can legally settle—Section 7 won’t save your claim if a capable co-owner delays!