Extinguishment of right, title and interest in property

Effect of Re-grant of Land.

Whatever so-called rights, title and interest which the original holders derived from the orders of re-grant in 1973 in the suit property in their favour, the same stood extinguished by efflux of time.

The reason was that in order to keep such new rights intact and enforceable, the original holders (three PATIL) were under a legal obligation to have filed a suit for claiming a declaration and possession of the suit land and this ought to have been done by them within 12 years from the date of re-grant, i.e., 1973.

They, however, failed to do so within 12 years and when they actually tried to exercise their rights by filing the suit in 2004 (after 31 years from 1973), by then it was too late to exercise such rights in law. By that time, their rights in the suit land stood extinguished.

Section 27 of the Limitation Act deals with extinguishment of right to property. It says that at the determination of the period prescribed in the Act for any person to institute a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished. Articles 64 and 65 of the Schedule provide 12 years period for filing a suit to claim possession of any immovable property. The period of 12 years prescribed in these two articles is required to be counted from “the date of dispossession” (Article 64) and “when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff” (Article 65).)

As held supra, the original holders (three PATIL) failed to file the civil suit against the plaintiff claiming possession of the suit land on the strength of their new title namely, re-grant in relation to the suit land, within 12 years from the date of re-grant and, therefore, by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, their all rights, title and interest in the suit land got extinguished.

A right in the property once extinguished by operation of law, it cannot be revived unless the law itself provides for its revival in a particular situation. Such is not the case here.
[Source: Eureka Builders v. Gulabchand decided by SC on May 3, 2018]
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s