In general, when we talk about a thing in general, we use the present simple. Today I have found a sentence from a statute which subordinate clause is in the past tense.
"No action is brought by a person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to the person."
If the subordinate clause is in the present simple:-
"No action is brought by a person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrues to the person."
does this sentence have the same meaning as the original sentence? If not, why?
Thank for your help in advance
"No action is brought by a person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to the person."
If the subordinate clause is in the present simple:-
"No action is brought by a person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrues to the person."
does this sentence have the same meaning as the original sentence? If not, why?
Thank for your help in advance