1978 (2) TMI 203 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the amendment brought About in the year 1929 could revive a right which was extinguished, dead and gone prior to 1929? Held that - Appeal dismiised. The lost right to this property long before 1947 could not be saved and revived in the year 1955 or 1961 by section 52A of the Act. Therefore, hold in agreement with the High Court that the suit was barred by limitation in regard to the property.

Summary

Issues:
- Suit dismissal by Trial Court and Bombay High Court
- Validity of sale deeds
- Adverse possession claims
- Application of Section 52A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
- Limitation period for recovery of properties

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their suit by the Trial Court and the Bombay High Court. The dispute revolves around the validity of sale deeds, particularly one dated 1-6-1905, which was deemed to be obtained by undue influence and not for the benefit of the Devasthan. The Trial Court found that the properties in question were bequeathed to the deity and that the sale deed was not binding on the Devasthan. Additionally, adverse possession claims were made by the defendants, leading to the dismissal of the suit on the grounds of being barred by limitation.

The plaintiffs argued in the High Court that Section 52A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, introduced in 1955, had no limitation for the recovery of properties of a Public Trust. They contended that the claim regarding one of the properties was not barred in 1955 and could not be held so in a suit instituted in 1961 post the introduction of Section 52A. However, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal, stating that adverse possession had granted indefeasible title to the purchasers of the properties, barring the plaintiffs' claims.

The Supreme Court, after thorough analysis, concluded that Section 52A did not revive extinguished rights and that the suit was indeed barred by limitation, even with the introduction of the said section. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation is procedural and cannot revive a dead claim. The judgment cited precedents to support the view that once a right is extinguished by adverse possession, it cannot be resurrected by subsequent legal provisions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

In essence, the judgment highlights the importance of adverse possession in property disputes and clarifies that legal provisions like Section 52A do not have the power to revive extinguished rights. The case serves as a reminder of the significance of understanding the legal principles governing property rights and limitations on legal remedies.