Limitation and adverse possession extinguish title; later statutory amendment cannot revive a barred trust claim.

Section 52A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 could not revive a trust claim where title had already been extinguished by adverse possession under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The Court treated limitation as procedural and held that a procedural amendment cannot resurrect a right already lost by operation of section 28. As the suit properties had been in adverse possession long before section 52A came into force, and property 1E had also been acquired by adverse possession and treated as private property, the later statutory change did not restore the extinguished claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 52A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 could revive a claim to trust properties that had already become barred and the right to which had been extinguished by adverse possession under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: The suit properties, other than property 1E, had been in adverse possession of the purchasers from the beginning, and by operation of section 28 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 the right to the property stood extinguished long before section 52A came into force. Limitation legislation is procedural in nature, and a procedural amendment cannot resurrect a right that had already been lost and extinguished. The same principle applied to property 1E, because the finding was that title had been acquired by adverse possession long before 1947, the property had been treated as private property, and the later statutory change could not revive the extinguished right.

Conclusion: Section 52A did not save the appellants' claim and could not revive rights already extinguished by limitation and adverse possession.

---