Ownership of property is desired by most of the people, but this ownership has a lot of complexities attached to it. Although it is a common belief that laws regarding the property are tilted towards the owner of the property, this is not the case in every situation. There are statutes in India against this common belief. The Limitation Act is one of such statutes. The Limitation Act, 1963 is one of the key legislations governing laws of adverse possession. This Act denotes a period of 12 years for private properties and 30 years for government properties, within which staking a claim by the owner of the property is an absolute necessity, without which it may lead to disputes in the future. This limitation act is based on a principle, which states that "limitation extinguishes the remedy, but not the right." According to this principle, in a case of adverse possession, the original owner may have title over his property, but claiming such title through a rule of law is not an option after the expiry of the limitation period. Although occupying or staying in a property does not qualify as ownership in the normal course, the occupant may claim the property title in the case of adverse possession. It is believed in such cases that the occupant starts staying legally and with the permission of the owner unless it is proved otherwise. Although adverse possession might seem a little extreme for the actual owner, it is a much-needed statute and is morally correct. This paper analyses the elements of adverse possession and the exemptions attached to it. It shows the origination of this statute and goes on to argue the status of this rule in India in the current scenario.