Zemska Limitation of Action: Certain Issues of Theory and Practice

Abstract

The history of law should be viewed not only within the context of the study on the birth of law being\xa0one of the social regulators, its emergence and evolution of its certain institutions, but also as an instrument\xa0of thorough understanding of legal forms recepted from Roman Law. Certain forms of these include\xa0usucapio – limitation of action introduced to Russian Imperial legislation by Article 301 of the Legislation\xa0Code of 1832.Ukraine can view the doctrine developed by legal scholars of those times as well as court practice on\xa0these issues as part of its own history as it used to be a part of the Russian Empire, where (except for\xa0Chernihiv and Poltava regions) Russian Imperial legislation was fully in force.\xa0Russian Imperial legal scholarship has adopted the approach applied by Roman law, including usucapio\xa0and praescriptio. However, the issue of usucapio existence in legislation acts of the Moscow State as a\xa0separate institute before 1832 has provided grounds for discussions.Similarly, the legal essence of the usucapio institute has also provided grounds for scholarly discussions\xa0on philosophic grounds regarding the impact of limiting legislation on the application of the limitation\xa0institute whether limitation should be similarly the ground for losing or acquiring rights, or regarding the\xa0conditions when the appropriate limitations may be applied.The analysis of past scholarly concepts provides possibilities to develop a full picture. Nevertheless, this\xa0picture is not without homogeneity of thoughts. The author takes the approach that the usucapio institute in\xa0Russian Imperial legislation has appeared and developed for assuring the stability of civil relations.\xa0Regardless of the division of providing evidence, the existence of the actual possession by the actual\xa0possessor of the mortgage after the 10-year term, the new possessor has been recognized and registered the\xa0property rights within time limitation if the conditions prescribed in the law are actually fulfilled. The\xa0interest in theoretical development in the limitation issue and the amount of the court practice provides\xa0evidence that it was claimed by the society.The definition of the Zemska time limitation has been changing gradually, and it can generally be viewed\xa0as calm, non-discussional, and continuous possession within the term developed by the law, in terms of\xa0“property”. The law of those times did not demand a fair possession conditions for acquiring the rights on\xa0limitation grounds, however this approach has been criticized by scholars.Generally, the author has selected the panoramic approach of constructing her research by paying attention to discussional issues, as well as the issues being of interest nowadays. Specific focus is made on\xa0actual inaction of titular proprietors of mortgage as the condition for loss of the right on limitation grounds\xa0and non-act possession. The actuality of stability of civil relations remains the same nowadays as it was in\xa0the past.