Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is one of the most significant provisions in property law because it goes beyond merely barring a remedy and can extinguish the owner’s right itself. If a person entitled to recover possession of property does not file the suit within the prescribed limitation period, the law treats the right to that property as extinguished.
This is why Section 27 is often described as an exception to the general principle of limitation law. In most cases, expiry of limitation only bars the legal remedy, but under Section 27, the title of the dispossessed owner may itself be lost when the statutory period for a possession suit expires.
However, this rule must be read together with the law of adverse possession. The Supreme Court has clarified that mere long possession is not enough; the possession must be hostile, open, continuous, and exclusive, and these facts must be clearly pleaded and proved by the person claiming title by adverse possession.
The decision in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India remains a leading authority on this point. The Court held that adverse possession must be peaceful, open, and without permission — and the burden lies heavily on the person who seeks to defeat the true owner’s title.
A recent reaffirmation appears in Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi MANU/SC/0105/2024, where the Supreme Court examined Section 27 along with Articles 58 and 65 of the Limitation Act. The judgment shows that courts closely examine the nature of the relief claimed, the date from which possession became adverse, and whether the claimant sought possession or only declaration.
Thus, the correct legal position is this: Section 27 extinguishes the right to property only when the limitation period for a suit for possession expires, but extinguishment usually arises in practice through established adverse possession, not by mere passive lapse of time alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment