Facts of the Case
- A person claimed ownership or possession of an immovable property.
- However, that person did not take any legal action to assert their claim for a long time.
- Meanwhile, another person occupied the property continuously, openly, and without interruption for several years.
- The original owner eventually approached the court to recover possession or assert title.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the delay in filing a suit resulted in the extinguishment of the original owner’s right to the property.
- Whether the possession of the property by the adverse possessor can mature into ownership.
- Whether Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies in this case.
Principles Associated with It
- Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 states that after the prescribed period for instituting a suit for possession of any property expires, the right to that property is extinguished.
- The principle of adverse possession becomes relevant—when a person occupies property without the owner’s permission, continuously and openly, for the statutory limitation period (usually 12 years for private property), the original owner’s rights are lost.
- The law encourages timely assertion of rights and penalizes inaction.
Judgement
- Courts have held that if a person fails to take legal action within the limitation period, their title or right to property is legally extinguished.
- The person in adverse possession gains a valid and enforceable title in the eyes of law.
- Delay beyond the limitation period, even if rightful ownership once existed, results in loss of legal remedy and extinguishment of the right itself.
