In a verdict that concludes a protracted legal struggle, a civil court in Mumbai has directed the eviction of a gardener's family from the servant quarters of a bungalow on Madh Island. The court emphatically ruled that a caretaker or servant does not acquire any property rights, regardless of how long they have lived there, especially if their initial occupation was permitted by the owner.
The Core of the 15-Year Legal Dispute
The conflict revolved around a modest 8-foot by 8-foot room situated within the premises of a bungalow named "Samrosh" in Erangal village. The property is owned by Daryus Panthakey, who inherited it via a will. The trouble began in 2009 when Panthakey discovered that his gardener, Zingubai Galande, and her son, Arvind Galande, were allegedly trying to transfer the property into their names.
According to the owner's testimony, when confronted, the Galande family admitted to wrongdoing and agreed to vacate the room by March 2010 to avoid a police case. They even surrendered the keys briefly. However, Panthakey alleged that just three days later, they returned with "anti-social elements," manhandled his security guards, and forcibly retook possession of the quarters.
Defendants' Claim of Adverse Possession Dismissed
The Galande family contested this narrative in court. They claimed to have occupied not just the servant quarters but the entire bungalow for over forty years. They argued that this long-term residence, supported by documents like ration cards and voter IDs, entitled them to the property through the legal principle of adverse possession. They further alleged that the resignation and possession letters presented by Panthakey were fabricated and that their signatures were obtained on blank papers through coercion.
Judge RR Patare, however, rejected these arguments. The court noted the family failed to provide any evidence of coercion and did not file police complaints about the alleged forgery at the relevant time. The judgment drew a clear legal distinction between a property owner and those employed to maintain it.
Court's Legal Reasoning and Final Order
"The servant or caretaker are under obligation to hand over vacant possession of the property on demand by their master," the judge observed. Crucially, the court stated that because the family's initial entry into the room was permitted by the previous owners, their continued stay could not morph into adverse possession.
"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 read. The court concluded that Panthakey had successfully proven he was in possession on March 24, 2010, and was illegally ousted three days later.
The final order mandates the Galande family to return the servant quarters to Daryus Panthakey. To ensure the decree is executed, the court has directed the court receiver of the Bombay High Court to oversee and facilitate the transfer of possession, finally allowing the owner to recover his property after a marathon legal battle.
