Presentation

Section 27. Extinguishment of right to property

If a person fails to bring a lawsuit for possession of a property within the time limit specified by the Limitation Act,
their right to claim that property is legally invalidated or "extinguished." This means that they no longer have a valid
legal claim or entitlement to the property.

In simpler terms, if someone fails to take legal action to claim a property within the specified time limit, they lose their
legal right to that property.

It's important to note that the specific time limits and other details may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the
applicable laws. So, it's always advisable to consult the relevant legislation or seek legal advice to understand the
exact implications in your particular situation.

Sec. 27 only applies to persons who are out of possession and seeks to recover possession, but not to the case of a
person who is still in possession of the property.

Sec. 27 applies to both movable and immovable property. Where no period of limitation is provided, then Sec. 27
does not apply.

CASE - Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer

In this case the Supreme Court provided a significant interpretation of Section 27 of the Limitation Act. The case
revolved around the issue of whether the landowner's right to claim compensation for the acquired land was
extinguished due to the expiration of the limitation period.

Fact-

The facts of the case involved the government acquiring land for public purposes but failing to pay compensation to
the landowner, Raja Harish Chandra, within the prescribed limitation period.

Issue

The main question before the court was whether the landowner's right to claim compensation for the acquired land
was barred or extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act.

Judgement

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, ruled that Section 27 of the Limitation Act applies specifically to suits for
possession of property and does not encompass claims for compensation or damages. The court interpreted the
language and intent of Section 27 and held that it does not extinguish the right to claim compensation.

The court reasoned that the purpose of Section 27 is to bar claims for possession of property after the expiration of
the limitation period, ensuring that the right to possess property is not indefinitely open to challenge. However, the
court emphasized that this provision does not apply to claims for compensation or damages, as these rights are
distinct from the right to possession.

Significance

The significance of this case lies in its clarification that the limitation period under Section 27 of the Limitation Act
does not invalidate the right to seek compensation or damages for acquired property. It establishes that the
extinguishment of rights under Section 27 is limited to claims for possession and does not extend to claims for
compensation or damages.