Should the court reject the plaint if the caretaker of the property claims an interest in the property against the owner of the property?

 The respondent no.1-plaintiff filed a suit with the

following prayer:

a) for a declaration that the plaintiff is a

lawful occupier as caretaker/servant of the sole

owner of the A schedule property and occupier and

adverse possessor of the B Schedule property.

After the notice was served. The application under

Order VII Rule 11, CPC came to be filed at the behest of

the present appellant-defendant with an objection that the

suit proceedings at the instance of the respondent no.1-

plaintiff who had pleaded himself to be a

caretaker/servant, acquires no interest in the subject

property irrespective of his long possession, is not

maintainable under the law and as regards the plea of

adverse possession is concerned, it lacks material

particulars.

The Trial Judge dismissed the application on the

premise that these are the subject matter of disputes which

can be examined only after the written statement being

filed at the behest of the present appellant-defendant and

is not within the scope of Order VII Rule 11, CPC and order

of Trial Judge came to be confirmed by the High Court by

the impugned order assailed in the present proceedings.

After we heard counsel for the parties and taking into

consideration the material on record, in our considered

view, the Trail Court has committed a manifest error in

appreciating the pleadings on record from the plaint filed

at the instance of respondent no.1-plaintiff who as a

caretaker/servant can never acquire interest in the

property irrespective of his long possession and the

caretaker/servant has to give possession forthwith on

demand and so far as the plea of adverse possession is

concerned as it lacks material particulars and the plaint

does not discloses the cause of action for institution of

the suit.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5779 OF 2021

HIMALAYA VINTRADE PVT. LTD. Vs MD. ZAHID & ANR. 

Dated: SEPTEMBER 16, 2021

Print Page

Supreme Court: Caretaker, watchman or servant can not claim possession of property against its owner

Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as under:

1. No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property.

2. Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.

3. The Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.

4. The protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour.

5. The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal No. 2968 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15382 of 2009)

Decided On: 21.03.2012

Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L. Rs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dalveer Bhandari, H.L. Dattu and Deepak Verma, JJ.

Citation: (2012) 5 SCC 370,

Print Page