The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S Oka in the case titled Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. v. MD. Zahid and Anr. gives their opinion on whether caretaker or servant can acquire an interest in property for his long possession.
Facts of the Case:
The appellant-defendant initially entered into an agreement to sell of the subject property in question on 23.02.2018 and after a formal deed of conveyance finally a sale deed was executed on 30.09.2019 and his right of ownership over the subject property in question became absolute. The respondent No. 1-Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that he is the lawful occupier as caretaker/ servant of the sole owner of the property. Respondent No. 1 had also sought permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from disturbing or evicting the peaceful possession of Respondent No. 1 otherwise than by the due course of law. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC submitting that the suit proceedings at the instance of 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.
Lower Court’s observation and Judgment:
The Trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the issue raised can be examined only after the Written Statement is filed by the appellant in the suit. The order of the trial court came to be confirmed by the High Court. These rulings were challenged before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s observation and Judgment:
After hearing both the parties, the Supreme Court has held that the Trial 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 an 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. Respondent No. 1 is directed to handover, vacant and peaceful possession of the subject property in question free from all encumbrances within three months. The appeal is allowed.
Read Judgement Here:
Picture Source :
