Supreme Court rules caretaker/ servant does not get interest in property regardless of long possession

The Supreme Court recently ruled that caretaker or servant can never acquire interest in property irrespective of their long possession of the property. (Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. v. MD. Zahid and Another).A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka was hearing an appeal moved against an order of the trial judge, which was later confirmed by the High Court..The appellant before the Supreme Court had entered into an agreement with the owner to buy the property in question. After a formal deed of conveyance, a sale deed was executed and the appellant's right of ownership over the subject property became absolute..The respondent before the top court had been employed as a caretaker by the earlier owner of the property. While employed by the earlier owner, the respondent had been allowed to reside on the property in question. .The respondent moved a suit seeking a declaration that he is the lawful occupier as caretaker/ servant of the sole owner of the property. He had also sought permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from disturbing or evicting the peaceful possession of the plaintiff otherwise than by the due course of law..In response, the appellant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) 1908, objecting to the suit initiated by the ‘caretaker/servant’..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..The Supreme Court disagreed with the view taken by the trial judge and the High Court, observing:."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.".The Supreme Court also rejected the respondent's plea of adverse possession, observing that material particulars were not given and that the plaint did not disclose the cause of action for instituting the suit. .The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court findings as not sustainable in law..[Read Order]