### Occupation as Caretaker or Watchman Does Not Constitute Settled Possession Under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act.

The Respondents (Plaintiffs) filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of "Barley Bungalow" in Igatpuri.

The Plaintiffs claimed the property was gifted to them in 2014 and that they had been in possession for over 50 years.

They alleged that the Applicant’s (Defendant) father was a watchman allowed to reside in an outhouse.

The Plaintiffs asserted they were carrying out extensive repairs until February 13, 2016, and that on February 14, 2016, the Defendant broke the locks and forcibly occupied the main bungalow.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs on May 21, 2022.

The Defendant challenged this via Revision, claiming he had been in long-term settled possession and that the Section 6 suit was a misuse of summary procedure.

1. Whether the Plaintiffs established "settled possession" of the suit property and were illegally dispossessed by the Defendant within six months prior to the filing of the suit.

2. Whether the occupation of the premises by the Defendant in the capacity of a watchman/caretaker constitutes legal "possession" for the purposes of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

The Court applied Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides a summary remedy for restoration of possession to a person dispossessed without consent otherwise than in due course of law, provided the suit is filed within six months.

It relied on *I.T.C. Limited v. Adarsh Coop. Housing Soc. Ltd.* and *Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Gulbahar Sheikh* to define the limited scope of Section 115 revisionary jurisdiction and the summary nature of Section 6, which ignores questions of title.

Furthermore, based on *Behram Tejani v. Azeem Jagani* and *Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira*, the court applied the principle that a caretaker, watchman, or gratuitous licensee does not acquire "settled possession" or legal interest in the property, regardless of the duration of stay.

The Court found that the Plaintiffs successfully proved their possession through credible evidence of extensive repair works conducted by contractors (carpenter and mason) up until the date of dispossession.

The Trial Court's reliance on the testimony of these independent witnesses, supported by invoices and cheque payments, outweighed the Defendant's unsubstantiated claims of carrying out repairs.

Regarding the Defendant's status, the High Court held that since the Defendant’s presence was originally in the capacity of a watchman/caretaker (as admitted in his father’s history and the Plaintiffs' pleadings), he lacked the animus possidendi (intention to possess) required for "settled possession".

The court reasoned that a servant holds possession only on behalf of the master; therefore, his act of breaking into the main bungalow on February 14, 2016, constituted a clear act of illegal dispossession.

The Defendant’s documentary evidence (ration card, electricity bills) merely proved his presence as a caretaker in the outhouse, not legal possession of the entire bungalow.

The Court affirmed that the Plaintiffs were in possession on the date of dispossession and that the Defendant, as a caretaker/watchman, had no legal right to retain possession against the owner.

The Defendant was directed to restore possession to the Plaintiffs, though he was granted time until April 30, 2026, to vacate the premises.

The holding clarifies that Section 6 relief is independent of title disputes and that "presence" on property as a servant does not equate to "possession" under the Act.