Karnataka High Court Refuses Injunction to Man Occupying House Since 1970s Without Rent Agreement, Says He Was Permitted To Stay As Caretaker
The Karnataka Excessive Courtroom refused to intervene with a Trial Courtroom’s order denying interim injunction to a person who claimed to have been dwelling within the go well with residential property because the Nineteen Seventies. The Courtroom held that he was merely permitted to remain as a caretaker by the deceased authentic proprietor and that his continued possession created no authorized proper or entitlement in opposition to the proprietor’s heirs.
A Single Bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha noticed, “The plaintiff who was admittedly permitted by deceased Smt. U. Manorama Rao to remain in a portion of the go well with property for the goal of caring for the mentioned property continues in possession of the property solely on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiff can’t be held to have acquired any curiosity within the property and is underneath an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand.”
Advocate P.D. Surana appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Arun Govindraj appeared for the Respondents.
Transient Information
The Appellant–Plaintiff filed a go well with earlier than the Periods Courtroom in search of a everlasting injunction in opposition to the Defendants, restraining them from interfering together with his alleged settled possession of the residential property. Together with the go well with, in addition they sought an interim injunction to restrain interference and alienation throughout the pendency of the go well with.
The Plaintiff claimed that he was inducted into the rear portion of the home within the early Nineteen Seventies on a nominal month-to-month hire of Rs. 250 by the deceased authentic proprietor, and had been residing there uninterruptedly ever since, whereas additionally sustaining the whole property. He asserted that this long-term possession amounted to settled possession and sought safety by a court docket injunction.
The Defendants, together with the deceased proprietor’s sons and authorized heirs, submitted that the Plaintiff was merely a caretaker allowed to remain within the servant quarters with none hire settlement. They positioned on document financial institution statements displaying that one of many defendants’ daughters was transferring Rs. 5,000 month-to-month to the Plaintiff, additional evidencing a caretaker association and never tenancy.
The Trial Courtroom dismissed the interim functions. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff approached the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning of the Courtroom
The Excessive Courtroom upheld the Trial Courtroom’s findings and rejected the Plaintiff’s declare that he was in lawful possession or had any tenancy rights, stating, “The plaintiff not produced something to show that he’s paying hire and he has didn’t show the prima-facie case and stability of comfort in his favour.”
The Courtroom famous that possession was solely permissive and didn’t confer any proper in property. It noticed, “The income information of the go well with property stand within the identify of the defendants. The plaintiff has not produced any paperwork to display that he is a tenant or that he has paid hire both to Smt. U. Manorama Rao or to the defendants.”
The Courtroom referred to the choice of the Supreme Courtroom in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (2012), the place it was held {that a} caretaker, watchman or servant can by no means purchase curiosity within the property regardless of his lengthy possession, and the caretaker or servant has to offer possession forthwith on demand.
The Courtroom noticed that within the absence of a sound tenancy, lease, or licence association, the Plaintiff had no locus to hunt equitable aid. “…the plaintiff who was admittedly permitted by deceased Smt. U.Manorama Rao to remain in a portion of the go well with property for the aim of caring for the mentioned property continues in possession of the property solely on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiff can’t be held to have acquired any curiosity within the property and is underneath an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand. Therefore it’s clear that the plaintiff can not search for an injunction in opposition to the defendants”, the Bench noticed.
The Courtroom affirmed the Trial Courtroom’s refusal to grant interim injunction, holding that there was no error in its evaluation of info or software of legislation.
Accordingly, the attraction was dismissed, being devoid of advantage.
Trigger Title: Sriramulu v. U. Ravi Rao & Ors. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:KHC:21576)
Look:
Appellant: Advocates P.D. Surana, R. Krishna Kishore
Respondents: Advocate Arun Govindraj
