Gujarat High Court
Manjulaben W/O Bhatabhai Banker vs Chhatrapaalsing Buddhimaansing ... on 13 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14434/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14434 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MANJULABEN W/O BHATABHAI BANKER
Versus
CHHATRAPAALSING BUDDHIMAANSING RAJPUT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ULLASH N GOHIL(8357) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/06/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner challenges order dated 09.10.2020 passed
by learned Auxi. Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad
in Civil Suit No.889 of 2020, whereby application for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14434/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
appointment of Court Commissioner is allowed and permitted
the Court Commissioner to carry out local inspection of the
property along with map and report as to establish possession of
plaintiff.
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. None appears for
the other side.
3. Chatrapalsinh Rajput - plaintiff in Civil Suit No.889 of
2020 filed in City Civil Court, Ahmedabad moved application
Exh.10 for appointment of Court Commissioner with contention
that he is care taker of the property belonging to the present
petitioner and he is in possession of said property. He came out
with relief that he may not be dispossessed. In the suit,
application was moved to establish that he is in possession of
the suit property.
4. On going through the impugned order, it appears that
learned Aux. Chamber Judge without applying mind attached
previous typed order to appoint Court Commissioner. It is
absolutely cryptic order and so it is required to be set aside at
first instance. The Court deprecates procedure of attaching such
previous typed order in application for appointing Court
Commissioner. It can be discerned that is previously typed order
as date mentioned in the order is handwritten. Even exhibit of
the application is not mentioned. This order is proved to be of
previous typed order and passed without application of mind
and requires to be set aside.
5. What further appears that in the Civil Suit filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14434/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
Chatrapal Rajput, he has claimed relief that he is caretaker of
the immovable property of petitioner and his possession should
not be disturbed. Such relief claimed by the plaintiff of the suit
is in teeth of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Versus Erasmo Jack De
Sequeria(Dead) Through L.Rs. [2012 (5) SCC 370 ]. Relevant
para 101 reads as under :-
"101. 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."
6. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, possession of
caretaker is possession on behalf of owner and he has no right to
possession once permission of the owner of immovable property
is discontinued.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14434/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2024
undefined
7. For the foregoing reasons and observations, present
petition succeeds. Impugned order is set aside and Application
Exh.10 in Civil Suit No.889 of 2020 stands dismissed.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
