1978 Supreme(SC) 110

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Smt. Baigana and others, Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Collector of Consolidation and others, Respondents.
Special Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 4963 of 1977
Decided on 14-3-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. N. Singh Advocate, for Petitioners.

Headnote:

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Section 50 and 51 - Indian Limitation Act, 1908 – Section 28 – Possession for land – Claim of compensation - By such adverse possession those who had come in possession of these properties had acquired an indefeasible title under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. It is not necessary to decide in this case as to which of the Articles in the First Schedule of the said Limitation Act applied to this case. Whether it was Arts. 134, 134-A, 134-B, 142 or 144 the claim had become barred long, long before the year 1955. The effect of S. 28 of the Limitation Act was that right to the property was extinguished resulting in conferment of a title by adverse possession on the persons in possession of the concerned properties. It is well-known that the effect of S. 28 of the Limitation Act is not only to bar the remedy but also extinguish the right. The right to the property itself was dead and gone. It could not be revived by a provision like the one contained in S. 52-A of the Act - Whether it was then barred by limitation must depend upon the law of limitation which was applicable to the suit at that time – Held, For the reasons stated above, it is clear that the appellants could not take advantage of S. 52-A of the Act in respect of the properties at 1A and 1D and 1F to 1G. Argument put forward by Mr. Datar to show that the claim was not barred in the year 1955 when Section 52-A came into force was absolutely devoid of any substance. It was against the stand taken in the High Court and does not merit any detailed discussion in our judgment - Coming to property at 1E now, we must confess at the outset that during the course of argument at one time, we thought that this property having been sold in the year 1947 by plaintiff No. 1, the right to the property was not extinguished under S. 28 of the Limitation Act in the year 1955. Therefore, although the suit was instituted in the year 1961, beyond 12 years of 1947, it would perhaps be saved under S. 52-A from the bar of limitation. But on a closer scrutiny and on appreciation of the argument of the other side in the light of the finding recorded by the High Court, we did not feel persuaded to give relief to the appellants even in regard to property at 1E. The High Court has found that plaintiff No. 1 had acquired title to property 1E by adverse possession long before 1947. He dealt with this property as his own. Even when the trust was declared as a Public Trust by the Charity Commissioner in or about the year 1954, the property at 1E was not shown as a trust property. The sale, therefore, in the year 1947 by plaintiff No. 1 conveyed a good title to the purchaser. The lost right to this property long before 1947 could not be saved and revived in the year 1955 or 1961 by S. 52-A of the Act. We, therefore, hold in agreement with the High Court that the suit was barred by limitation in regard to this property, also - Appeal dismissed Appeal dismissed