Watchman or caretaker's occupation of outhouse does not constitute settled possession of entire property under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; plaintiffs' prior possession proved by repair works entitles restoration.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) The Applicant has preferred the present Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) challenging the Judgment and Order dated 21 May 2022 passed by the learned 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, decreeing Special Civil Suit No.218 of 2016 and directing the Applicant/Defendant to restore possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

2) Applicant is the Defendant in Special Civil Suit No.218 of 2016. The Suit was originally instituted by Rev. Samuel Shankar Chandekar and another under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking restoration of the possession in respect of the suit property from the Applicant-Defendant.

3) At the heart of the controversy between the parties is a British owned and constructed bungalow named ‘Barley Bungalow’ together with five outhouses located at Igatpuri, District-Nashik and which is situated on land bearing City Survey No.570 (Survey No.155-A) admeasuring 1 Hector 14 R (suit property).

4) It is Plaintiffs’ pleaded case in the plaint that the suit property was owned by one Barley family, which was of British origin. The suit property was inherited by Arthur Robert Mitchell, who executed Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 claims possession in respect of the suit property. According to the Plaintiffs, after death of Arthur Robert Mitchell, the suit property was inherited by his wife-Nahiya and his son-Parsy. Plaintiffs claim that the suit property and other properties are gifted to Plaintiff No.1 on 7 November 2014. However, Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property for over 50 years.

5) According to the Plaintiffs, Defendant’s father Kacharu Gaikwad was in service at Igatpuri Nagar Parishad and he was appointed as watchman to look after the suit property and other properties by the Plaintiffs. That Kacharu Gaikwad was allowed to reside in one out of the five outhouses of the bunglow. That Plaintiff No.1 used to pay him salary on behalf of the owners. Kacharu Gaikwad passed away in 1999. It is Plaintiffs’ case that the Defendant is a Government servant and employed in the services of Railways at Kalyan and was residing at Trimurti Chowk, CIDCO, Nashik. He requested Plaintiff No.1 to permit him to reside in the outhouse of the suit property and promised to look after the suit property. Plaintiff No.1 appointed the Defendant on 24 February 2006 as watchman and permitted him to reside in one of the outhouses of the bunglow. Accordingly, Defendant started residing in the outhouse of the suit property in capacity as watchman.

6) Plaintiffs applied to Igatpuri Nagar Parishad for carrying out repairs of the bungalow. That in 2011, the Defendant carried out unauthorised construction in the suit property, which led to filing of police complaint on 18 April 2011 by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs commenced repairs in the suit property in 2012 and the repair work was further carried out in May 2012 onwards. That till 13 February 2016, the repair work in the bungalow was going on. That on 13 February 2016, the workers locked the bungalow after