Mere long possession for years or even decades won’t clothe the occupant with any title or right in an immovable property.
Supreme Court has expounded that the person holding premises gratuitously or in capacity as a caretaker or as the servant would not acquire any right or interest on the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequence.
Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit restored the City Civil Court’s order, which had rejected prayer for the interim injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing plaintiff from suit premises without following due process of law.
The case of Defendants was that the maternal grand-mother of the plaintiff was merely allowed to use and occupy suit premises by Defendants out of love and sympathy without any fees or compensation and but the suit premises belonged to the Defendants.
Bench reiterated that:
- No person acquires the title to the property incase he came into possession gratuitously.
- Mere long possession even if decades long by such person does not create any right or interest in the property.
- Persons like caretaker or servant are bound in law handover possession forthwith on demand.
- Such persons hold property on behalf of the principle and not independently.
- Courts should not protect possession of such persons.
- Courts should protect only such possessions who have valid and subsisting lease or license agreement in their favour.