ASHOK KACHARU GAIKWAD v. SAMUEL SHANKAR CHANDEKAR (DECEASED) THR. LRS. SMT. NIRMALBAI SAMUEL CHANDEKAR
Legal Status of Caretakers and Watchmen; Mere Occupation as a Servant Does Not Amount to Settled Possession Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:10243
Decision Date: 27-02-2026
List of Laws
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Doctrine of Settled Possession; Law of Property - Caretaker and Servant Occupation
- Facts: The Respondents (original Plaintiffs) claimed ownership and possession of a British-era bungalow and outhouses in Nashik. They alleged that the Applicant (Defendant) was appointed as a watchman in 2006 and permitted to reside in one outhouse. While the Plaintiffs were conducting extensive repairs between 2012 and 2016, the Defendant allegedly broke into the main bungalow on 14 February 2016 and took unauthorized possession. The Defendant resisted the suit by claiming he and his family had been in settled possession of the entire property for over 50 years, producing documents like ration cards and electricity bills to support his residence.
- Procedural Posture: The Plaintiffs filed a summary suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Trial Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik) decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs on 21 May 2022, ordering the restoration of possession. The Defendant challenged this decree before the Bombay High Court via a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Issue: Whether a person occupying premises in the capacity of a watchman or caretaker can claim the status of "settled possession" to resist restoration of possession to the owner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
- Holding: No. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decree, holding that the occupation of a property by a servant or caretaker does not amount to "settled possession" in the eyes of the law.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the inquiry is limited to proving possession and dispossession within six months of the suit, irrespective of title. The Plaintiffs proved their possession through evidence of ongoing repairs conducted by their contractors (carpenters and masons). Conversely, the Defendant's presence was only in the capacity of a watchman. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that a caretaker holds property only on behalf of the principal and acquires no right or interest, regardless of the duration of stay. Since a caretaker’s possession is not "settled possession", the Defendant was liable to be evicted following his act of trespass into the main bungalow.
🔒 For Members Only