Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

A Caretaker/Servant Can Never Acquire Interest In Property Irrespective Of His Long Possession: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
20 Sep 2021 3:28 PM GMT
A Caretaker/Servant Can Never Acquire Interest In Property Irrespective Of His Long Possession: Supreme Court
x

The Supreme Court observed that a caretaker/servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession.In this case, the plaintiff sought a declaration that he is a lawful occupier as caretaker/servant of the sole owner of the suit property. He also sought a permanent injunction restraining defendant to disturb or evict his peaceful possession of the...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court observed that a caretaker/servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession.

In this case, the plaintiff sought a  declaration that he is a lawful occupier as caretaker/servant of the sole owner of the suit property. He also sought a permanent injunction restraining defendant to disturb or evict his peaceful possession of the suit property.

In this suit, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that suit proceedings at the instance of the caretaker/servant is not maintainable as he acquired no interest in the subject property irrespective of his long possession. The Trial Court dismissed this application and the said order was upheld by the High Court.

In appeal, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka disagreed with this view and observed thus:

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.

Allowing the appeal, the court rejected the plaint holding that the instant proceeding is not sustainable on the first principles of law.


Citation: LL 2021 SC 479

Case name: Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Md. Zahid

Case no.| Date: CA 5779 OF 2021 | 16 September 2021

Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka


Click here to Read/Download Order


Next Story
Share it