Even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequences, the bench held.
The Supreme Court, in Behram Tejani vs. Azeem Jagani, has reiterated that a person holding the premises gratuitously or in the capacity as a caretaker or a servant would not acquire any right or interest on the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequences.
The bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit restored a city civil court order, which had rejected the prayer for interim injunction restraining the defendants from dis-possessing plaintiff from the suit premises without following due process of law. It was the case of defendants that the maternal grand-mother of the plaintiff was merely allowed to use and occupy the suit premises by the defendants out of love and sympathy without any fees or compensation and that the suit premises belonged to them.
Setting aside the high court order, the court referred to Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRS, wherein it has been held as follows: