Ayodhya Judgement ,the most prominent and significant judgement for the Indian History passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, compels us to question upon a very pertinent issue, which is, “The question is not as to whether the distribution of property was just, fair or accurate, rather, whether the principle of Complete Justice was fulfilled through the lens of Adverse Possession? Or it was just another attempt by the judiciary to negate the law and prove that secularism is just on papers.” The Doctrine of adverse possession came into being, by basing upon the principle of Abeyance, as to, no property shall be in a state of suspension as it can be utilized for the societal development. The adage that persons who ignore their rights are not helped by the law or by equity is used to promote prescription of title by adverse possession. The original title holder who failed to uphold his claims to the property cannot be allowed to return to it after a considerable amount of time has passed. In the case of, Hemaji Waghaji1 and Mukesh Kumar2 the court emphasized upon the definition of adverse possession from its previous judgements as: “irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate and extremely harsh of the true owner, and a windfall for dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property” 3,and that there is an imperative need to view this law with a fresh look.