Mumbai: In a legal battle spanning over 15 years, a civil court has ordered the eviction of a grarnder’s family from the servany quarters of a Madh Island bungalow. The court observed that the caretaker does not acquire any right or interest in the property, irrespective of the duration of their possession, ruling that they forcibly dispossessed the rightful owner after initially agreeing to resign. The dispute centered on an 8-foot by 8-foot room located on the grounds of “Samrosh,” a bungalow in Erangal village belonging to Daryus Panthakey. The litigation began after Panthakey, who inherited the property through a will, discovered in 2009 that his gardener, Zingubai Galande, and her son, Arvind Galande, were allegedly attempting to transfer the property into their own names. According to Panthakey, the defendants initially admitted to their illegal acts when confronted and agreed to vacate the premises in March 2010 to avoid a police complaint. While the Galande family briefly surrendered the keys, Panthakey alleged they returned three days later with “anti-social elements” to manhandle his security guards and retake the room by force.The defendants contested the owner’s version of events, claiming they had occupied the entire bungalow and servant quarters for over forty years. They argued that their long-standing residence, backed by ration cards and voter IDs, granted them rights over the property through adverse possession. They further alleged that the resignation and possession letters produced by Panthakey were “fabricated” and that their signatures had been obtained on blank papers through “coercion and misrepresentation.“However, Judge RR Patare dismissed the arguments, noting that the family failed to provide evidence of coercion or file any police reports regarding the alleged forgery at the time. The judge noted the legal distinction between a property owner and those hired to care for it. “The servant or caretaker are under obligation to hand over vacate possession of the property on demand by their master.”The judge found that because the family’s initial entry into the room was permitted by the previous owners, they could not claim the property as their own simply by staying there for decades. “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 stated.The court held that Panthakey had successfully proven he was in possession of the room on March 24, 2010, and was illegally ousted just three days later.The court said that the Galande family must return the servant quarters to Panthakey. The court receiver of the Bombay High Court has been directed to facilitate the transfer of possession to ensure the owner finally recovers the small room.
