In a landmark ruling that underscores the legal limits of a caretaker's claims, a Mumbai civil court has ended a protracted 15-year legal battle by ordering the eviction of a gardener's family from the servant quarters of a bungalow on Madh Island. The court firmly stated that a caretaker or servant does not acquire any right or interest in a property, regardless of how long they have lived there.
The Core of the 15-Year Legal Dispute
The dispute centered on a small 8-foot by 8-foot room located within the grounds of a bungalow named "Samrosh" in Erangal village. The property belonged to Daryus Panthakey, who inherited it through a will. The conflict began in 2009 when Panthakey discovered that his gardener, Zingubai Galande, and her son, Arvind Galande, had allegedly tried to transfer the property into their own names.
According to the owner's case, when confronted, the Galande family initially admitted to their illegal actions. To avoid a police complaint, they agreed in March 2010 to vacate the premises and even surrendered the keys. However, Panthakey alleged that just three days later, they returned with "anti-social elements," manhandled his security guards, and forcibly retook possession of the room.
Family's Claim of Adverse Possession Dismissed
The defendants, the Galande family, presented a contrasting narrative in court. They claimed they had occupied not just the servant quarters but the entire bungalow for over 40 years. They argued that this long-standing residence, supported by documents like ration cards and voter IDs, granted them rights over the property through the legal principle of adverse possession.
Furthermore, they alleged that the resignation and possession letters presented by Panthakey as evidence were "fabricated." They claimed their signatures were obtained on blank papers through "coercion and misrepresentation."
Judge RR Patare, however, dismissed these arguments. The court noted the family failed to provide any concrete evidence of coercion and did not file any police reports about the alleged forgery at the relevant time. The judge drew a clear legal distinction between a property owner and those hired to maintain it.
The Legal Principle: Servant's Possession is Master's Possession
The judgment delivered a crucial interpretation of property law as it applies to caretakers. "The servant or caretaker is under obligation to hand over and vacate possession of the property on demand by their master," the court observed.
Judge Patare emphasized that because the family's initial entry into the room was permitted by the previous owners, their continued stay could not morph into a claim of ownership. "It is settled that possession of a servant or caretaker cannot be converted into adverse possession because their entry and occupation are permissive and on behalf of their master," the judgment stated.
The court concluded that Panthakey had successfully proved he was in lawful possession of the room on March 24, 2010, and was illegally ousted three days later.
The Final Order and Implications
The civil court's final directive was unequivocal. It ordered the Galande family to return the servant quarters to the rightful owner, Daryus Panthakey. To ensure the order is properly executed, the court directed the court receiver of the Bombay High Court to facilitate the transfer of possession. This step is meant to finally allow Panthakey to recover the small room after a decade and a half of litigation.
This ruling serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing that permissive occupation can never become adverse possession. It clarifies that servants, caretakers, or any individuals allowed to live on a property as part of their service cannot later claim ownership based solely on the duration of their stay, protecting property owners from such protracted disputes.
