Dear friends,
Supreme Court in its decision given on 21.3.2012 (copy attached) has held that no one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. It further held that Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give up possession of the property forthwith on demand. Apex Court also laid fresh guidelines that caretakers, watchman or servants do not acquire any title to a property merely because of its possession by them for several years.
Court further observed that Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount, which happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimised to a large extent.
The apex court passed the ruling while upholding an appeal of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes who was embroiled in a two-decade-long legal battle with her brother and former Member of Parliament Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, whom she had appointed as a caretaker of her property in Goa.
Thanks,
From India, Malappuram
1442Supreme Court in its decision given on 21.3.2012 (copy attached) has held that no one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. It further held that Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give up possession of the property forthwith on demand. Apex Court also laid fresh guidelines that caretakers, watchman or servants do not acquire any title to a property merely because of its possession by them for several years.
Court further observed that Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount, which happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimised to a large extent.
The apex court passed the ruling while upholding an appeal of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes who was embroiled in a two-decade-long legal battle with her brother and former Member of Parliament Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, whom she had appointed as a caretaker of her property in Goa.
Thanks,
From India, Malappuram
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Death while in service letter for pf death claim.docx
PF Death case Composite Claim Form No 20,10D & 5IF.xls