Extinguishment of right to property

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur

   Supreme Court of India 07 Aug 2019 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2019) 8 SCC 729

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Judgement of Main Case order-34.pdf 2019-08-07 (not same-date ROP order-33; later 2020-07-31 order-43 is a different file). CA 7764/2014. A person who has perfected title by adverse possession may sue to protect that title; Limitation Act s.27 extinguishes the true owner's right and is not only a shield. Map limitation-act 27.

   On this section: s.27 extinguishes the right of the paper owner at the end of the limitation period. Perfected adverse possession can be used as a sword (to sue for possession/declaration), not only as a shield in defence. Grewal 2019 three-judge restatement.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Surjit Kaur vs Kartar Singh

   Supreme Court of India 21 Aug 2014 Binding (SC) - Landmark

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In a usufructuary mortgage where no time limit is fixed for repayment of the mortgage money, the right of the mortgagor to redeem or recover possession commences not on the date of mortgage but on the date when the mortgage money is paid out of the rents and profits of the property or, where rents and profits partially satisfy the debt, on the date when the mortgagor pays or tenders the remaining balance to the mortgagee or deposits it in court. Consequently, the period of limitation of 30 years prescribed under Article 61 of the Limitation Act runs from such date of payment or deposit, not from the date of the mortgage itself. The mortgagor's right of redemption, being a statutory right under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act and rooted in equitable principles, cannot be extinguished merely by the passage of time; it persists until extinguished by act of the parties or by court decree.

   On this section: Provides that expiry of limitation period extinguishes not merely the remedy but also the right itself; however, this is subject to the proviso in Section 60 TPA that the right cannot be extinguished in a mortgage context except by act of parties or court decree

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Utha Moidu Haji vs Kuningarath Kunhabdulla

   Supreme Court of India 30 Nov 2006 Binding (SC)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A suit filed by a person to set aside a property transfer made on his behalf when he was a minor must be filed within three years of attaining majority or within twelve years from the date of the deed, whichever is earlier. The concept of co-ownership cannot be invoked to circumvent the application of limitation provisions. When a person enters into possession of land under a void or voidable transaction, his possession becomes adverse from the date he comes into possession, and the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to such suits. A contention regarding adverse possession and co-ownership cannot be raised for the first time before the appellate court if it was not an issue in the trial court.

   On this section: Relates to acquisition of indefeasible title through adverse possession after the prescribed period

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.