A. If at the date on which the cause of action raised, the
Plaintiff is under no disability or inability then time will naturally begin to run against him because there is no reason why the ordinary law should not have full operation. Section 9 of the Limitation Act says that once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application can stop its running. This applies to a person himself as well as to his representative-in-interest after his death.
1. A right to sue accrues to P, when he is under no disability; but subsequently he becomes insane. Time runs against P as usual, from the date of accrual of the right and his subsequent disability (viz. insanity) is no bar to the running of time.
2. A right to sue accrues to P during his minority. After 4 years he becomes major, but subsequently (i.e., sometime after attaining majority) he becomes insane. Time run against P from the date of his attaining majority and his subsequent insanity does not stop the running of limitation.
3. A right to sue accrues to P during his majority. P dies only one day after attaining majority and is succeeded by his son, K who is a minor. Time begins to run against K from the date of death of P and K’s majority is of no avail to him because when limitation has once begun to run, it cannot be suspended by any disability subsequently arising.
The words used in section 9 are “disability or inability.” Disability is the want of capacity to act, such as minority, insanity or idiocy. Inability, on the other hand, denotes, want of power or facility to act. There is no provision in law to extend the time for a person who is unable to file a suit apart from his disability arising from his being a minor or an idiot or insane person.
There is only one exception allowed by the section viz., when the- administration of an estate has been, given to a debtor of the deceased, no time will run against such a debtor until the administration of estate which has been entrusted to him has been finished.
In such cases the law prevents the duty of properly administering the estate to come into conflict with the right of the person to sue for the debt, the hand to give and the hand to receive is the same.