1.

(a) Explain with example, how ‘Prescription’ operates in destroying the property rights of a
person in immovable property and create as well. (b) Compare and contrast between
requirements/elements of Section 26 and 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 so far creation of
‘prescriptive right’ are concerned.

a)There are 4 modes of acquisition of property.Acquisition by way of Prescription is one of

them. Prescription is the effect of lapse of time creating and destroying a right. Hence the
operation of time is a sensitive fact. Prescriptions are of two kinds:
a) positive / acquisitive prescription and
b) negative or extinctive prescription.
In this, Positive prescription means the creation of a right by the lapse of time whereas negative
prescription is the destruction of a right by way of lapse of time.For example: the destruction of
ownership of land through dispossession for 12years.Here,who now the possessor, possessing
the immoveable property is gained the right wheather another person who lost his right to the
property by letting another to have the possession.
There are 2 kinds of prescription is associated that one man losses and in that time another
man gained the right.‘Prescription’ operates in destroying the property rights of a person in
immovable property and create as well.Long possession create rights like as longer the
possession as longer the evidencial value is.
b)According to Section 26 of The Limitaion Act 1908 says if someone enjoys any right for more
than 20 years he himself has the title over that property.On the other hand section 28 of The
Limitation Act 1908, says is someone right to such property shall be extinguished if any person
doesn’t file a suit in the time limit period when any other person is enjoying over his property
right.Section 26 and 28 deals with the different factor sec26 is for easement for 20 years. and
Where the access and use of light or air to and for any building have been peaceably enjoyed therewith
as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years. Where,sec28 is for
possession of the immoveable property for 12years.

Here,So as long prescriptive right is the effect of lapse of time which will create or destroy a
right. So one of this section creates right for some for the lapse of time on the other hand one
will lost the right to redeem the right over a property. So in context one section creates the
right and one destroys a right.
 3. Mr. Rahman used to be in possession of 5 bighas of land in Mirpur, which was trespassed by
him few years ago and ever since enjoyed by him without acquiring the title. However, with the
passage of time few local influential people having political noxious trespassed the same
property on three independent occasions and totally dispossessed Mr. Rahman from the
property by taking over possession of the entire property. Thereafter, Mr. Rahman filed a suit
against such trespassers (the subsequent ones) under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877
to recover his possession thereof. In defense, the subsequent trespassers (who are in
possession now) argue that the plaintiff himself is a trespasser too in the property in question
having no title, and the real title/ownership lies in another third party. Consider yourself as
judge of the trying Court and give your verdict.
Ans:
We know that, There are 4 modes of acquisition in which a person can become the owner of
the property. Acquisition by way of possession is one of them.In law, Possession is the objective
realization of ownership. The law protects the possession of a possessor whether that person
have ownership or not.In this case, Mr. Rahman used to be in possession of 5 bighas of land in
Mirpur, which was trepassed by him few years ago and ever since enjoyed by him without
acquiring the title but after some year, some local people also started to possessed it by
dispossessed Mr Rahman.Here, , Mr. Rahman filed a suit against such trespassers who are the
subsequent ones under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 to recover his possession
thereof.Though in defence, , the subsequent trespassers who are in possession now argued
that the plaintiff himself is a trespasser too in the property in question having no title.
According to “Section 9” of the Specific Relief Act, if any person has been dispossessed from his
immoveable property without his consent even if he is not the real owner of the property, he
can recover his possession.here, Mr Rahman was in the possession of that mirpur property for a
considerable time.Here Mr Rahman can suit a file to recover his possession under sec 9 of the
Specific Relief Act 1877,and he have to prove that- he was in the possession of that property ,
he has benn dissposssed and deprived of actual physical possession,And the dispossession took
place without his consent and it was doe otherwise in due course of law, and finally the
possession has to be within six months within the time period when the dispossession
arrived.Who has the title or have the better title shall be competent to ask for recovery of the
property on eastablishment of such right.A person will not get remedy if he comes into court
after expired of 6 months of cause of action arose . On the other hand, according to section 28
of the Limitation Act, 1908 if a person is in an adverse possession and enjoy the possessed
property for more than 12 years continuously and uninterruptedly, the person will become the
owner of the property.If Mr.Rahman can prove his right or title though he was a trespasser but
he has the better title to possessed, Then the court may give the possession to Mr. Rahman as
the dispossessor does not have any legal authority over the property. But dispossession of the
possessor without consent is illegal. In such way the law restrains people to take law into their
own hands.Thus, Mr. Rahman can protect his right of possession of the property although he is
not the actual owner.