Which of the following is true in respect of the 'Limitation Law' introduced by Britisher in Colonial India?

This law stated that the loan bonds signed between moneylenders and ryots would have validity for only three years.

The correct answer is Option 3 - This law stated that the loan bonds signed between moneylenders and ryots would have validity for only three years.

In 1859 the British passed a Limitation Law that stated that the loan bonds signed between moneylenders and ryots would have validity for only three years. This law was meant to check the accumulation of interest over time. The moneylender, however, turned the law around, forcing the ryot to sign a new bond every three years. When a new bond was signed, the unpaid balance – that is, the original loan and the accumulated interest – was entered as the principal on which a new set of interest charges was calculated. In petitions that the Deccan Riots Commission collected, ryots described how this process worked and how moneylenders used a variety of other means to short-change the ryot: they refused to give receipts when loans were repaid, entered fictitious figures in bonds, acquired the peasants’ harvest at low prices, and ultimately took over peasants’ property.

The other options-

Option 1- According to Ricardian ideas a landowner should have a claim only to the 'average rent' that prevailed at a given time.

Option 2- It stated that if revenue payment did not come in by sunset of the specified date, the zamindari was liable to be auctioned- This was SUNSET LAW, not Limitation law.

Option 4- None of the above.