Caretaker Of Property Obliged To Handover Possession To Owners On Demand, Cannot Seek Injunction Against Them: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that a caretaker of the property continues in possession of the property only on behalf of the owners and cannot be held to have acquired any interest in the property and is under an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand.Justice C M Poonacha held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by one Sriramulu who had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants from interfering in his possession and also restrain them from alienating the suit property. The bench said “The Trial Court having appreciated the relevant factual matrix and having rejected the application filed for injunction by the plaintiff, the appellant has failed in demonstrating that the said order is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.” U.Narayana Rao with his wife Smt.U.Manorama Rao were the owners of the suit property, having jointly purchased the same. Consequent to the death of U.Narayana Rao in the year 1965 and U. Manorama Rao in March 2020, their children i.e., the defendant, succeeded to the property. The plaintiff claimed that U.Manorama Rao let out the backside of the property in favour of the plaintiff on a nominal monthly rent of Rs 250 per month in the year 1970. She during her lifetime went to the United States of America to meet with her children, and the plaintiff has been in continuous, uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the suit property for over 50 years. Even after his death, his heir continued in possession of the suit property till the date of the suit. Thus, he has filed the suit for a declaration and sought a temporary injunction. Challenging the order of the trial court, the plaintiff argued he admittedly has been in possession of the suit property from the year 1970-71 onwards i.e., for more than 50 years and that the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property has been admitted by the defendants, in the written statement. Since the plaintiff has been in settled possession of the suit property, he is entitled to an order of injunction as sought for vide the applications filed by him. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was a caretaker of the suit property and that he was permitted to stay in the back portion of the suit property where a servant's quarters are situated. Moreover, the plaintiff was a servant under Smt. U. Manorama Rao, and consequent to her death, the defendants were regularly paying a monthly rent of 5,000, which was transferred to the Bank Account of the plaintiff. Further, since the defendants have entered into an Agreement dated 23.02.2024 with a 3rd party/developer vis-à-vis the suit property, the present suit has been filed with oblique motives. Findings: The bench noted that the plaintiff has in his plaint contended that Smt. U.Manorama Rao let out the backside portion of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, it is pertinent to note that in the schedule to the plaint, the entire suit property measuring 78 feet to 55 feet of a total extent of 4200 sq.ft is mentioned. Further, the defendants have specifically contended that the plaintiff is only a caretaker of the property and that defendant No.1 was periodically visiting the suit property from Hyderabad and staying in the front side portion of the suit property. They also produced Bank statements to show that periodical monthly payments had been made to the plaintiff. Following which it said “As rightly held by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to demonstrate that he is a tenant or that he has paid rent either to U.Manorama Rao or the defendants. The revenue records of the suit property also stand in the name of the defendants.” The bench referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others V/s Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (Dead through LRs), 2012(5) SCC 370. Accordingly, it held, “The plaintiff who was admittedly permitted by deceased Smt. U.Manorama Rao to stay in a portion of the suit property for the purpose of taking care of the said property continues in possession of the property only on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiff cannot be held to have acquired any interest in the property and is under an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand. Hence it is clear that the plaintiff cannot seek an injunction against the defendants.” Thus, it dismissed the appeal. Appearance: Advocate P D Surana for Advocate R Krishna Kishore for Appellant.Advocate Arun Govindraj for R1. Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 226Case Title: Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & Others Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3281 OF 2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Caretaker Of Property Obliged To Handover Possession To Owners On Demand, Cannot Seek Injunction Against Them: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

Caretaker Of Property Obliged To Handover Possession To Owners On Demand, Cannot Seek Injunction Against Them: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers