The Karnataka High Court has clarified that a caretaker of a property has no right to claim an injunction against the property owners and is bound to hand over possession to them on demand. Justice C.M. Poonacha made this observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Sriramulu, who had sought to restrain the legal heirs of the owners from interfering in his possession of the suit property or from alienating it.
The case stemmed from a dispute over a property originally owned by U. Narayana Rao and his wife, Smt. U. Manorama Rao, who had jointly purchased the premises. After Narayana Rao's death in 1965 and Manorama Rao’s death in March 2020, their children succeeded to the property. Sriramulu, the plaintiff, argued that he had been in possession of the back portion of the property since 1970-71 on a nominal rent of ₹250 per month, allegedly let out to him by Smt. Manorama Rao with an arrangement to take care of the entire premises. He stated that he had been in continuous, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession of the property for more than fifty years, and therefore sought a declaration of rights and a temporary injunction against the defendants.
Read Also:-Karnataka High Court Stays Termination of 195 ASHA Mentors by State Health Department
The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that since his possession of the suit property had been admitted by the defendants, and as he was in what he described as “settled possession,” he was entitled to an injunction.
On the other hand, the defendants argued that the plaintiff was only a caretaker who had been permitted to stay in the servant’s quarters at the back portion of the property. They further explained that after the death of Smt. Manorama Rao, they continued paying the plaintiff ₹5,000 per month, which was transferred to his bank account. The defendants also revealed that they had entered into an agreement with a third-party developer in February 2024 concerning the suit property, and the plaintiff’s suit was motivated by oblique reasons to obstruct their plans.
The Trial Court had earlier refused the temporary injunction applications, observing that the plaintiff had not produced any rent agreement, receipts, or other supporting documents to prove a tenancy arrangement. The High Court also noted these findings, highlighting that revenue records stood in the defendants’ names and no evidence showed that the plaintiff had paid rent to either the original owners or their legal heirs.
Quoting the Trial Court, the bench observed, “he plaintiff has not produced anything to prove that he is paying rent and he has failed to prove the prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favour.
Justice Poonacha referred to several precedents, including Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria, where the Supreme Court had held that a caretaker, watchman, or servant cannot acquire any interest in the property, no matter how long they occupy it. The caretaker holds the property on behalf of the owner and is under a duty to hand over possession when asked. The Court stated, “the caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand”, and cannot approach courts to protect such occupation.
The High Court further explained that “the plaintiff who was admittedly permitted by deceased Smt. U. Manorama Rao to stay in a portion of the suit property for the purpose of taking care of the said property continues in possession of the property only on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiff cannot be held to have acquired any interest in the property and is under an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand.”
The appeal was ultimately dismissed as being without merit. Justice Poonacha concluded that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any error in the trial court’s reasoning, stating, the Trial Court having appreciated the relevant factual matrix and having rejected the application filed for injunction by the plaintiff, the appellant has failed in demonstrating that the said order is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.
The matter was heard as Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3281 of 2025, titled Sriramulu vs. U. Ravi Rao and Others. The appellant was represented by Advocate P.D. Surana, appearing for Advocate R. Krishna Kishore, while Advocate Arun Govindraj appeared for the respondents.
Appearance: Advocate P D Surana for Advocate R Krishna Kishore for Appellant.
Advocate Arun Govindraj for R1.
Case Title: Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3281 OF 2025
