Introduction:

In the case titled Sriramulu versus U Ravi Rao & Others, arising out of Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3281 of 2025, the Karnataka High Court recently ruled against the appellant Sriramulu, reinforcing the settled legal position that a caretaker of property cannot claim ownership or seek an injunction against true owners. The case revolved around a decades-long occupancy dispute over a property jointly owned by late U. Narayana Rao and his wife Smt. U. Manorama Rao, which after their deaths devolved upon their children, the defendants in the suit.

Arguments:

The appellant, Sriramulu, had filed a suit seeking a declaration of his rights and a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession or alienating the suit property, claiming continuous possession for over fifty years since 1970 when he alleged that U. Manorama Rao let out the backside of the property to him at a nominal rent of Rs. 250 per month. Sriramulu argued that since he had been in settled, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession for more than half a century, and since the defendants had themselves admitted his possession in their written statement, he was entitled to protection through an injunction under established principles of law. His counsel emphasized that settled possession creates an equitable right deserving protection, and that any attempt by the defendants to disturb it should be restrained until final adjudication. The appellant also questioned the propriety of the trial court’s order denying him interim relief, asserting that it overlooked the material on record demonstrating his settled possession, and failed to appreciate the admissions by the defendants regarding his longstanding occupancy of the suit premises.

On the other side, the defendants firmly rebutted the claim of tenancy, asserting that the plaintiff was only a caretaker who had been permitted to occupy the servant’s quarters at the back of the suit property by Smt. U. Manorama Rao during her lifetime for the limited purpose of looking after the premises in her absence. The defendants pointed out that after her demise in March 2020, they, as her successors-in-interest, continued to periodically pay him a monthly sum of Rs. 5,000 as an honorarium for his caretaking services, substantiated by bank statements reflecting regular transfers into the plaintiff’s account. They argued that such payments could not be construed as rent creating tenancy rights, particularly since the revenue records and title documents continued to stand in the names of the defendants, who retained legal ownership of the property. They further asserted that they were entitled to seek possession from the caretaker at will, and that the appellant’s suit was filed with mala fide intent after learning of the agreement dated 23.02.2024 that the defendants had entered into with a developer, which provided for redevelopment of the property. The defendants submitted that the appellant’s suit for declaration and injunction was a stratagem to obstruct legitimate plans to alienate or develop the property and prevent them from exercising their rights as absolute owners.

Judgement:

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice C M Poonacha, after considering rival arguments and re-examining the factual matrix, concurred with the trial court’s finding that the appellant had failed to establish any legal or equitable right warranting an injunction. The bench observed that although the appellant claimed to be a tenant, he had not produced a single document such as a rent agreement, rent receipts, or correspondence to prove tenancy or payment of rent to either Smt. U. Manorama Rao or the defendants. Instead, the court noted that the schedule to the plaint described the entire 4,200 sq. ft property, not just the small portion allegedly let out, suggesting that the plaintiff’s claim was grossly overstated. The bench highlighted that the defendants had consistently and credibly maintained the appellant was a caretaker, with no evidence produced to dislodge this position. Justice Poonacha referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead through LRs), 2012(5) SCC 370, emphasizing that in cases of disputed possession, courts must ascertain who established actual possession by examining both documentary and oral evidence. Applying that principle, the bench found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated possession in his own right but only as a permissive occupant or caretaker on behalf of the owners, and hence could not seek an injunction to restrain the true owners from exercising their rights over their own property. It was further underscored by the bench that the revenue records continued to stand in the names of the defendants, reinforcing their ownership. The High Court held that settled possession does not accrue when a person is allowed to occupy property merely as a caretaker because such possession is always on behalf of and subordinate to the rights of the true owners. Consequently, the caretaker remains bound to surrender possession to the owners on demand. In light of these findings, the bench held that the trial court’s order refusing interim injunction did not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sriramulu, affirming that the caretaker had no independent right to restrain the true owners from dealing with or alienating the property, and he was under an obligation to hand over possession whenever demanded by the rightful owners. This judgment once again clarifies that permissive possession never ripens into tenancy or ownership rights, and caretakers cannot claim adverse or independent interests against the title holders of the property.