IMPORTANT POINTS
1. A possessory suit is good against the whole world except the rightful owner. It is not maintainable against the true owner.
2. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process.
3. In civil cases, pleadings are extremely important for ascertaining the title and possession of the property in question.
4. In order to grant or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the judge must carefully examine the entire pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness.
5. No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property.
6. Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act,1963- Section 6- Suit for injunction filed by respondent brother against appellant his sister in respect of suit property- Trial Court granted injunction in favour of the respondent - Revision Application-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal- Admittedly, the respondent did not claim any title to the suit property- Undoubtedly, appellant had a valid title to the property which was clearly proved from the pleadings and documents on record-The respondent had not been able to establish the family arrangement by which this house was given to the respondent for his residence- The Courts below failed to appreciate that the premises in question was given by appellant to her brother respondent as a caretaker- The caretaker holds the property of the principal only on behalf of the principal- The respondent’s suit for injunction against the true owner - the appellant was not maintainable, particularly when it was established beyond doubt that respondent was only a caretaker and he ought to have given possession of the premises to the true owner of the suit property on demand- Impugned judgment of High Court as also of Trial Court set aside –Appeal allowed (Paras 93 to 105)
       Facts of the Case :
        A Suit for injunction was filed by respondent brother against appellant his sister in respect of suit property herein in the instant case. Trial Court granted injunction in favour of the respondent . Revision Application thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Undoubtedly, appellant had a valid title to the property which was clearly proved from the pleadings and documents on record.The respondent had not been able to establish the family arrangement by which this house was given to the respondent for his residence. The Courts below failed to appreciate that the premises in question was given by the appellant to her brother respondent as a caretaker. The caretaker holds the property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. The respondent’s suit for injunction against the true owner - the appellant was not maintainable, particularly when it was established beyond doubt that respondent was only a caretaker and he ought to have given possession of the premises to the true owner of the suit property on demand. Impugned judgment of High Court as also of Trial Court was set aside .Appeal was allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here is a summary of the facts, issues, and holding:

Facts: The case involves a dispute between siblings over a property. The appellant, who is the owner and in possession of the property, had purchased it through auction and established her title and ownership. She had been in continuous possession and had paid municipal taxes and utility bills, confirming her ownership status. The respondent, her brother, was given possession of the property as a caretaker based on a family arrangement, but he did not claim ownership or title. He shifted out of the property and handed over the keys, but later filed a suit claiming possession and seeking an injunction, asserting that he had been in long-term possession and that his possession was based on a family arrangement. The appellant contended that the respondent's possession was permissive and that he was a caretaker holding the property only on behalf of the owner, with no legal interest or right to continue possession.

Issues: The primary legal issues were whether the respondent, as a caretaker, had any legal right or interest in the property that would entitle him to continued possession or protection under law, and whether the suit for injunction filed by him was maintainable against the true owner. Another issue was whether the appellant had valid title and possession, supported by documentary evidence and records, and whether she was entitled to recover possession from the respondent. Additionally, the case examined whether the respondent's long possession could establish any rights or whether such possession was merely permissive and thus not protected.

Holding: The court held that the appellant had a valid and subsisting title to the property, supported by documentary evidence and official records. The respondent’s possession was found to be only as a caretaker, holding the property on behalf of the owner, and not as a person with any independent right or interest. Since the respondent did not claim title and his possession was permissive, his suit for injunction against the true owner was not maintainable. The court further emphasized that long possession alone does not confer ownership rights, especially when the possession was permissive. Consequently, the court set aside the judgments in favor of the respondent and directed that the possession of the property be handed back to the appellant. The respondent was given a limited time to vacate, and the court ordered compensation for occupation until possession was restored to the owner.

JUDGEMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Goa in Civil Revision Application No.3 of 2009.

3. Appellant No.1 and respondent No.1, Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (now dead) were sister and brother, hereinafter referred to as appellant and respondent respectively.

4. According to the appellant, she is the sole owner and is in exclusive possession of the suit property. Her title of the said suit property was clearly admitted, and never disputed by the respondent, Erasmo Jack de Sequeira. According to the appellant, the suit property was given to her brother as a caretaker. The respondent has kept appellant, his own sister, out of her suit property for about two decades by suppressing relevant material and pertinent information from the Court and abusing the process of law.

5. Both the appellant and the respondent hail from the State of Goa and belong to one of the leading and well known families of Goa. The father of the appellant and the respondent, Dr. Jack D. Sequeira was an affluent businessman and a well-known politician of Goa. Dr. Sequeira, during his lifetime, gave a number of properties worth crores of rupees to the respondent and also gave some properties to the appellant and her sisters. The respondent was given a soft drink factory at Goa, mining leases of iron ore, agricultural lands and residential plots including one situated at Dona Paula, which is located next to the Governor’s House. Though the respondent was given properties worth several crores of rupees, he still eyed on a small property which the appellant purchased through Court auction after paying full sale consideration. The respondent-brother of the appellant was also a very influential and important Member of Parliament. He was also very active in the local politics in Goa.

6. The appellant urged that the suit property originally belonged to her grandmother. Under the Portuguese Law, her (grandmother’s) children, i.e. two sons and a daughter (the appellant’s father, uncle and aunt) got 1/3rd share each in the said suit property. The suit property of her grandmother was put to auction and this suit property in question was purchased in auction by the appellant. In the Inventory Proceedings No. 1075/935 in the year 1968, she became the exclusive owner of the suit property. Admittedly, the appellant has placed a certified copy of the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji dated 27th May, 1972 issued in favour of the appellant. According to the appellant, the possession and title of the suit property in favour of the appellant is established from the judgment of the Inquiry Officer of City Survey Tiswadi, Panjim, Goa. The said order was not only passed in the presence of the respondent, but also in the presence of his Attorney, Rodrigues who was also a senior executive officer of the respondent. The relevant portion of that judgment is as under:-

“The claim put forth by Shrimati Maria Teresa de Sequeria from Panaji, in respect of Chalta No.14 of P.T. Sheet 65 was inquired into and it was found that the same belongs to the said Maria Teresa de Sequeria in view of Inventory Proceedings No.9- 1968 [1075-935] - vide Certificate issued by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji dated 27.5.72 and as such her title and possession to the Chalta No.14 of P.T. Sheet No.65 is confirmed.”

7. According to the appellant, she obtained the exclusive title of the plot and the house in question.

8. It may be pertinent to mention that the respondent had even participated in the said Court proceedings on behalf of his handicapped aunt, Edna May Sequeria as a guardian and received a cheque on her behalf. The appellant had deposited Rs.40,000/-, the owelty money in the said Court proceedings which became payable on account of the purchase of the said house. The said suit property stood registered in Panaji Municipal Council in the name of the appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 246

Cases Referred (12)