PART III COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION

Section 18: Effect of acknowledgment in writing

The Limitation Act, 1963

(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.

(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right,

(b) the word “signed” means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and

(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.

Questions on this section

9 questions in 31 of our papers cite Section 18. Try these from the free papers:

1. Under Section 18(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, where the writing containing an acknowledgment of liability is undated:
2. Assertion (A): An acknowledgment of liability signed by a judgment-debtor does not give the decree-holder a fresh period of limitation for an application to execute the decree. Reason (R): Under Explanation (c) to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an application for the execution of a decree or order is not deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.
3. Consider the following statements regarding Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963: 1. An acknowledgment "signed" by an agent duly authorised in this behalf is sufficient. 2. An acknowledgment signed by a person through whom the party against whom the right is claimed derives his title or liability is sufficient. 3. An acknowledgment is insufficient if it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Practise questions on Limitation Act, 1963