Vikrant Shekhawat : Sep 27, 2021, 10:38 PM
The Supreme Court has given a big decision regarding the claim of the caretaker regarding the property. Yes, the Supreme Court has said that a caretaker or servant can never claim a property despite his long-standing possession. Not only this, the Supreme Court has said that when the landlord asks, he (caretaker or servant) will have to vacate the house or property.Let us inform that a bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S Oka said this while hearing an appeal filed against an order of the trial judge. The order of the trial court was also confirmed by the High Court.
It may be noted that the appellant of the Supreme Court (Himalaya Wintrade Pvt Ltd) had entered into an agreement with the owner for purchase of a property. Through the sale deed, the appellant got the right of ownership over the property.
The respondent (Mohammed Zahid and others) was appointed as a caretaker by the former owner of the property before the Supreme Court. The defendant was allowed to reside on that property by the former owner. The respondent filed a suit claiming that as a care taker, he had lawful possession of the property and was the sole proprietor of the property, he had also sought a permanent injunction to prevent eviction from the property.
That's where the interesting thing happened in this case. According to him, the trial court and the high court had refused to hear the petition of the landlord. The court had refused to proceed further on the petition in which the caretaker had pleaded not to vacate himself from the property premises.
The trial judge had dismissed the application on the ground that it was the subject matter of dispute. This can be verified only after recording a written statement at the instance of the owner. The trial court had held that this order was not within the scope of VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court had also confirmed that order of the lower court. Order-7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC provides that if the statement made in the plaint is found to be barred by any law, then the suit shall be dismissed.
At the same time, setting aside the order of the lower court, a bench headed by Justice Ajay Rastogi said that the trial court has clearly made a mistake in this matter. Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that the caretaker/servant can never acquire rights in the property despite his long possession. He said that as far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, the caretaker/servant will have to give the possession immediately at the instance of the owner.
It may be noted that the appellant of the Supreme Court (Himalaya Wintrade Pvt Ltd) had entered into an agreement with the owner for purchase of a property. Through the sale deed, the appellant got the right of ownership over the property.
The respondent (Mohammed Zahid and others) was appointed as a caretaker by the former owner of the property before the Supreme Court. The defendant was allowed to reside on that property by the former owner. The respondent filed a suit claiming that as a care taker, he had lawful possession of the property and was the sole proprietor of the property, he had also sought a permanent injunction to prevent eviction from the property.
That's where the interesting thing happened in this case. According to him, the trial court and the high court had refused to hear the petition of the landlord. The court had refused to proceed further on the petition in which the caretaker had pleaded not to vacate himself from the property premises.
The trial judge had dismissed the application on the ground that it was the subject matter of dispute. This can be verified only after recording a written statement at the instance of the owner. The trial court had held that this order was not within the scope of VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court had also confirmed that order of the lower court. Order-7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC provides that if the statement made in the plaint is found to be barred by any law, then the suit shall be dismissed.
At the same time, setting aside the order of the lower court, a bench headed by Justice Ajay Rastogi said that the trial court has clearly made a mistake in this matter. Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that the caretaker/servant can never acquire rights in the property despite his long possession. He said that as far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, the caretaker/servant will have to give the possession immediately at the instance of the owner.