Limitation Act: Rajender Singh and Others v. Santa Singh and Others [(1973) SC]

Introduction

This case highlights the interplay of the Limitation Act and the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court addressed whether lis pendens could halt the running of limitation during a pending suit and whether possession claims could endure legal challenges beyond the prescribed statutory timeline.

Facts

1. Background:

• The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of 331 Kanals and 11 Marlas of land, gifted to them by Smt Malan and later by Smt Khemi, who died in 1944.
• The defendants contended that the plaintiffs’ suit was barred by limitation as the land had been in their adverse possession for over 12 years.

2. Key Legal History:

• A prior suit between the parties, initiated in 1940 and decided by the Punjab High Court in 1958, had questioned the rightful possession of the disputed land.
• The plaintiffs argued that lis pendens during the earlier litigation extended the limitation period.

Issues

1. Does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act halt the running of limitation during a pending suit?
2. Is the plaintiffs’ claim for possession barred under the Limitation Act, 1908?

Judgment

1. Doctrine of Lis Pendens and Limitation:

• The court ruled that lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not stop the running of the limitation period.
• The doctrine applies to transfers or dealings with property that affect ongoing litigation but does not cover one-sided actions like adverse possession.

2. Barred by Limitation:

• The plaintiffs’ suit was time-barred, as the defendants had maintained adverse possession for more than 12 years.
• Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act extinguished the plaintiffs’ title due to their failure to act within the statutory period.

3. Judicial Restraint:

• The court emphasized that it could not introduce exceptions to statutory provisions or legislate remedies that bypass clear legal mandates.

Reasoning

1. Adverse Possession:

• The court clarified that adverse possession ripens into a legally enforceable right after the limitation period lapses, provided the possession is open, continuous, and hostile.

2. Doctrine of Lis Pendens Limits:

• Lis pendens safeguards against parties circumventing litigation through transfers but does not impact adverse possession, which is not a bilateral transaction.

3. Limitation Act’s Policy:

• Statutes of limitation aim to ensure stability in property rights and penalize inaction. The plaintiffs’ delay allowed the defendants to acquire title through adverse possession.

Significance

1. Clarity on Lis Pendens:

• The judgment limits the scope of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, confining its application to transactions directly impacting litigation.

2. Reaffirming Limitation Principles:

• The decision underscores the importance of timely legal action and rejects arguments that undermine the Limitation Act’s purpose.

3. Judicial Boundaries:

• Courts must respect legislative intent and cannot create exceptions to statutory laws based on case-specific equities.