JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated March 2, 1994 in R.S.A. No. 31/87 of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondent filed the suit for possession on November 4, 1982. Admittedly, he was a minor at the time of the death of his father. It is also an admitted fact that he attained majority on April 17, 1977. He filed the suit for possession of the plaint schedule property within 12 years under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, Act 21 of 1963 (for short the Act). It is contended for the appellant that the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of cessation of respondents disability but it was filed beyond three years and that, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. A conjoint reading of Ss. 6(1) and 8 of the Act shows that where a person is entitled to institute a suit, the limitation begins to run for a minor or insane, or an idiot to institute the suit be within the same period after the disability has ceased as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor in the 3rd Column of the Schedule i.e. 3 years from the date of cessation of disability. We find force in the contention.

3. Section 3 of the Act posits that the period of limitation applicable to a suit or other proceedings, if the period prescribed in the Schedule gets expired, the suit or application becomes barred by limitation though the right may subsist. However, S. 3 says that in particular circumstances, the limitation gets modified by the provisions of Ss. 4 to 24 of the Act. Article 65 in Part V of the Schedule regulates limitation of the suits relating to immovable property. For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, the period of limitation prescribed is 12 years which begins to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Section 6 deals with legal disability under sub-sec. (1) thereof where a person entitled to institute a suit or at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned. A minor or insane or an idiot, may institute the suit or make an application within the same period, after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor in the third Column of the Schedule. In other words, though in a given case, the defendant may have perfected title by adverse possession during minority of the plaintiff by remaining in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the immovable property ascertaining his own exclusive right, title or interest in immovable property to the knowledge of the plaintiff, on cessation of the disability, even though the period of limitation prescribed in third Column of the Schedule might have expired by efflux of time, S. 6 elongates the right and enlarges the limitation and entitles the minor, insane or idiot to institute the suit or make the application within the same period prescribed in the Third Column of the Schedule to the Act, after the disability to which the minor, the insane or the idiot has been subjected to, ceased. Section 8 makes special exception to S. 6. In other words, notwithstanding the availability of limitation in the Third Column of the Schedule prescribed under the relevant Article, the suit or application shall be filed within three years from the cessation of the disability or the death of a person affected thereby engrafting the language thus :-

"8. Special exceptions.- Nothing in Section 6 or in Section 7 applies to suits to enforce rights of pre-emptions, or shall be deemed to extend, for more than three years from the cessation of the disability or the death of the person affected thereby, the period of limitation for any suit or application.

4. In other words, S. 8 is a proviso to S. 6 or 7. A combined effect of Ss. 6 and 8 read with Third Column of the appropriate Article would be that a person under disability may sue after cessation of disability within th