Section 27 Limitation Act: When Delay Destroys Title

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.

Print Page

Supreme Court Explains basic concept of Adverse possession and its rational

In Saroop Singh v. Banto (2-Judge Bench) MANU/SC/1146/2005 : 2005:INSC:500 : (2005) 8 SCC 330, this Court observed that Article 65 states that the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the Plaintiff but commences from the date the Defendant's possession becomes adverse. Further relying on Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (2-Judge Bench) MANU/SC/0377/2004 : 2004:INSC:276 : (2004) 10 SCC 779, it observed that the physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases related to adverse possession. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blend of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession; (b) what was the nature of his possession; (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; (d) how long his possession has continued; and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to prove his adverse possession.

{Para 20}

21. This Court in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan (2-Judge Bench) MANU/SC/4083/2008 : 2008:INSC:1075 : (2009) 16 SCC 517, reiterating the observations made in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2-Judge Bench) MANU/SC/7325/2007 : 2007:INSC:453 : (2007) 6 SCC 59 in respect of the concept of adverse possession observed that efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depends on strong limitation statutes by operation of which, right to access the court expires through efflux of time. As against the rights of the paper-owner, in the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for the land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who has ignored the property. Modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time but also to vest the possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the statute under a claim of right or colour of title.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3854 of 2014

Decided On: 13.02.2024

Vasantha (Dead) thr. L.R. Vs. Rajalakshmi (Dead) thr. L.Rs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0105/2024.

Print Page