R.B. Policies At Lloyd’s v. Butler (1949) 

Introduction

This suit instituted by the plantiff "R.B Policies", who lost his motor car in June ,1940, against the defendant, in July 1947. Since the suit was instituted after the prescribed time period of 6 years by the Limitation Act, 1939, the Court declared it to be time barred.

Facts

• The action brought by the plantiff against the defendant 'Mr. Alfred Butler' by a writ on July 1947, to claim the return of the motor car which was stolen from the plantiff on June, 1940 .
• In Jan 1947, the plantiff found car in the possession of the defendant with different registration no. which has been passed through a line of different purchasers during the previous seven years.
• Therefore, the plantiff filed suit on ground of wrongful detention of car by the defendant. 

Defendant pleaded

• Plantiff cause of action is barred by the Limitation Act, 1939, Section 2(1) of which says :
• No action shall be brought after the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Main Issue

1. When does the cause of action accrue ? 
2. Whether the suit is time barred.

Court observation and Ratio

1. Limitation Act is based on a legal maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Iura Subveniunt" which says who go to sleep, their claim not assisted by the court.
2. As per 1939 limitation act : 
• The moment this car was stolen, time begins to run from that moment, despite of the fact that the plantiff is ignorant of the thief.
3. In the case of  A’ Court v. Cross 1825 : The Court held that "limitation is often called an act of peace, long dormant claims have more cruelty than of justice in them. 
4. By virtue of Section 3 of 1963 limitation act : It is obligatory on part of Court to dismiss the suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period. 
5. The Court observed that although the plantiff was not guilty of cruel conduct but a claim after seven or eight years against the innocent holder who have given good consideration for it, without any knowledge that it was stolen property, does not seem justice. 

Judgment 

• Appeal dismissed.