Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

0% found this document useful (0 votes)
461 views4 pages

Law Students: Vigilance in Rights

The document discusses the Latin legal maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt", which means "the laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep". It explains that the law will only help those who are vigilant about protecting their rights, and that one must be proactive in enforcing their rights or they will be lost. Several case examples are provided that illustrate how the courts have upheld this principle by dismissing cases where plaintiffs failed to vigilantly pursue legal action within statutory limitation periods.

Uploaded by

vijendrayadav
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
461 views4 pages

Law Students: Vigilance in Rights

The document discusses the Latin legal maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt", which means "the laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep". It explains that the law will only help those who are vigilant about protecting their rights, and that one must be proactive in enforcing their rights or they will be lost. Several case examples are provided that illustrate how the courts have upheld this principle by dismissing cases where plaintiffs failed to vigilantly pursue legal action within statutory limitation periods.

Uploaded by

vijendrayadav
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Project Report

Legal Language

Topic:

Vigilantibus non dormientibus

jura subveniunt

Vijendra Yadav

Roll No.

LL.B. 1st Year


Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt

Literal Meaning

The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep.

Explanation & Origin

Latin: the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep

thereupon.

Law will help only those who are vigilant.

Law will not assist those who are careless of his/her right. In order to claim one’s right,

she/he must be watchful of his/her right. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful

of using his/her rights, are entitled to the benefits of law. Law confers rights on persons

who are vigilant of their rights.

Usually, law prescribes statutory limitations for enforcing one’s relief against another. One

cannot institute a suit after the prescribed statutory period. A person who has kept mum

during the statutory period cannot claim for the enforcement of right after the statutory

limitation.
Illustration

Art. 19 of The Limitation Act of 1963 says that for money payable for money lent – Period

of limitation is 3 years – Time from which period begins to run: When the loan is made.

This means, when the money is lent as loan, a suit for recovery of that amount has to be

filed within three years from the day on which the money was lent.

If X lent Rs.1,00,000/- to Y on 01.01.2000, if X want to file a suit against Y for the recovery

of the same, he/she need to file the suit within three years, i.e., 31.12.2002. If the suit is

filed after 31.12.2002, the Court will dismiss the same on the ground that the claim is

barred by limitation.

Case Reference

Tilokchand Motichand & Others vs H.B. Munshi & Another [(1955) 1 S.C.R. 168]

In this case forcement of the maxim, Vigilantibus, non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Under

peculiar circumstances, however, excusing or justifying the delay, courts of equity would

not refuse their aid in furtherance of the rights of the party; since in such cases there was

no presence to insist upon laches or negligence, as a ground for dismissal of the suit; and

in one case carried back the account over a period of fifty years.
B.L. Sreedhar & Ors vs K.M. Munireddy (Dead) And Ors. [AIR 2003 SC 578]

In this case it was held that Delay defeats equities, or, equity aids the vigilant and not the

indolo Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt.”

Smt. Vanka Radhamanohari vs Vanke Venkata Reddy And Ors. [1993 (2) BLJR 875]

In this case it was held that The general rule of limitation is based on the Latin maxim:

vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt (the vigilant, and not the sleepy, are

assisted by the laws). That maxim cannot be applied in connection with offences relating to

cruelty against women.

Beg Ram and Anr. vs Charan Das And Others [16th May 1955]

In this case it was mentioned that On the principles, however, that the interests of the State

require that a period should be put to litigation (Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium), and

that a party who is not prompt in asserting his claim does not deserve the aid of the State in

enforcing it (Vigilantibus, non dormientibus jura subveniunt) it is necessary that the

exercise of every right should be subject to a period of limitation. A right of revision, though

more limited in scope than a right of appeal, is nonetheless a right, so that, if no period of

limitation is specifically prescribed therefore in the Limitation Act it is expedient that the

ninety-days rule of limitation in the case of an appeal should also be adopted in the case of

a revision.

You might also like