Law of Limitation
Continuing Breaches and Wrongs: Section 22, Limitation Act
Most wrongs happen once, and time runs from that event. Some wrongs, however, go on: a nuisance that is kept up, an obstruction that is maintained, a contractual duty that is broken every day it is not performed. Section 22 of the Limitation Act provides that in such cases a fresh period begins at every moment the wrong continues. The difficulty lies not in the rule but in identifying a continuing wrong, and the Supreme Court has drawn a firm line between a wrong that continues and a completed wrong whose effects continue. This note explains that line, the related concepts and the leading cases.
1. The Provision
- Text, s.22. In the case of a continuing breach of contract or a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort continues.
- Effect. While the wrong continues, the claim can never become wholly time-barred. Once the wrong stops, the period runs from the last moment it continued.
- Scope. The section covers breaches of contract and torts. Courts have applied the same principle in service, consumer and public law, though not always under s.22 itself.
2. The Test
Figure 1: Continuing wrong or completed wrong
- Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan (1959). The Supreme Court held that the test is whether the wrongful act itself continues. Where the act causes an injury that is complete once done, there is no continuing wrong, even though the damage resulting from it continues. The ouster of the pujaris from the temple was complete when it occurred.
- Duty and default. A continuing wrong involves a continuing duty whose breach continues. Where the obligation was to be performed by a fixed date, the default is complete on that date.
- CWT v Suresh Seth (1981). A failure to file a return by the due date was held to be a default complete on that date, not a continuing wrong, even though the duty to file remained.
3. Related Concepts
Figure 2: Continuing, successive and recurring wrongs
- Successive breaches. Failure to pay each instalment of rent or of a loan is a separate breach with its own period, not a continuing breach. Only instalments within the period can be recovered.
- Nuisance and obstruction. A nuisance or obstruction that is maintained is a continuing tort. Article 85 nonetheless runs from the date of obstruction for a suit for compensation, so the nature of the relief matters.
- Dispossession. Ouster from land is a completed wrong; the owner's remedy is governed by the possession articles and s.27, not s.22 (Topic 22)
4. Leading Cases
Figure 3: Continuing wrongs in the Supreme Court
- Union of India v Tarsem Singh (2008). A wrong in the fixation of pay or pension is a continuing wrong, so the claim is not defeated by delay. But arrears are ordinarily restricted to three years before the proceedings, and relief affecting the settled rights of third parties may be refused.
- Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society v Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (2022). A builder's continuing failure to obtain an occupancy certificate is a continuing wrong, so a consumer complaint is not barred by the two-year period under the Consumer Protection Act.
⚠ Exam trap Section 22 applies only to a continuing breach of contract or continuing tort, where the wrongful act itself continues. A completed wrong with continuing effects, such as an ouster, is not covered (Balakrishna Savalram, 1959). Successive breaches, such as unpaid instalments, give separate periods. In service matters, a continuing wrong avoids the bar of delay, but arrears are usually limited to three years (Tarsem Singh, 2008). |
5. Frequently Asked Questions
Is wrongful dispossession a continuing wrong?
No. Dispossession is complete when it occurs, though its effects continue. The owner's suit for possession is governed by the articles on possession, and his right may be extinguished under s.27 after the period expires.
Can a pensioner claim arrears for the whole period of a wrong fixation?
Ordinarily no. In Union of India v Tarsem Singh (2008) the Supreme Court held that a wrong fixation of pension is a continuing wrong, so the claim itself is not barred, but arrears are normally restricted to three years before the date of the proceedings.
6. Related Topics
- Topic 20: Compensation for Acts Needing Special Damage, Section 23. The next provision.
- Topic 22: Extinction of Right and Adverse Possession, Section 27. Why dispossession is different.