Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law relating to Limitation

Kavita has used a watercourse across Dev's land for over twenty years. Dev builds a wall that actually stops her use, and Kavita, knowing who built it, does nothing about it for eight months and then removes it. Under the Explanation to Section 25, how is the obstruction treated?

The obstruction is an interruption only if the claimant submits to or acquiesces in it for one year after notice of it and of the person responsible. Since Kavita removed the wall after eight months, there is no interruption of her enjoyment.

  1. AIt is not an interruption, because Dev is a private owner
  2. BIt is an interruption only if Kavita submitted to it or acquiesced in it for one year after noticeCorrect
  3. CIt is an interruption from the first day, as there was actual discontinuance
  4. DIt is never an interruption unless a court orders it

Explanation

The Explanation says nothing is an interruption unless there is actual discontinuance by the act of another person and the obstruction is submitted to or acquiesced in for one year after the claimant has notice of it and of who made it. Kavita acted within eight months, so the enjoyment is not interrupted. Treating it as interruption from day one ignores the one-year requirement.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law relating to Limitation shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law relating to LimitationFree diagnostic mock

More Law relating to Limitation questions