A caretaker cannot acquire rights to property solely through long possession; valid rental or license agreements are necessary for legal protection.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. The present appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’] by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in O.S. No.2473/2024 by the IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5), [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’] whereunder I.A. Nos. I and II filed by the plaintiff were dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that one Sri U.Narayana Rao with his wife Smt.U.Manorama Rao were the owners of the suit property having jointly purchased the same. Consequent to the death of U.Narayana Rao in the year 1965 and U. Manorama Rao in March 2020, their children i.e., defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 succeeded to the suit property. Defendant No.2 having died, his son has been brought on record as defendant Nos.2 (a).

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that Smt.U.Manorama Rao let out the backside of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on nominal monthly rent of Rs. 250/- per month in the year 1970- 71 since she was unable to maintain and manage the affairs of the suit property, with a further condition that the plaintiff should take care of the entire suit property while staying in the backside of the suit property. That Smt.U.Manorama Rao during her lifetime went to United States of America to meet with her children and that the plaintiff has been in continuous, uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the suit property. Even after the death of Smt. U. Manorama Rao, the plaintiff * deleted and Corrected vide Court order dt. 1.7.2025 continued in possession of the suit property till the date of the suit. Alleging interference by some unknown persons, the plaintiff filed a police complaint and thereafter the suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful *possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. The defendants entered appearance in the suit and filed their Written Statement and contested the case of the plaintiff, contending inter alia that the plaintiff was a caretaker of the suit property and that he was permitted to stay in the back portion of the suit property where a servant quarters is situated. It is the further contention of the defendants that the plaintiff was a servant under Smt. U. Manorama Rao and consequent to her death the defendants were regularly paying a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/- which was transferred to the Bank Account of the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff filed I.A.I for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff filed I.A.II to restrain the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property. It is forthcoming from the records that the Trial inserted and Corrected vide Court order dt. 1.7.2025 Court had granted interim status-quo order dated 04.07.2024. The defendants opposed the said applications. The Trial Court by order dated 09.04.2025, dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

5. Sri P.D. Surana, learned counsel appearing along with Sri.R.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, assailing the order passed by the Trial Court contend