In Brief
The appellant-defendant challenged a High Court order dismissing his application to reject the plaintiff's suit at the admission stage. The plaintiff claimed to be a lawful caretaker and adverse possessor of certain property (Schedule A and B) that the defendant had purchased. The Supreme Court held that a person occupying property as a caretaker or servant cannot acquire legal interest in it, regardless of possession duration, and must surrender it on demand. The Court found the plaintiff's plaint internally contradictory (claiming both caretaker status and adverse possession), lacking material particulars, and disclosing no valid cause of action. The appeal was allowed, the plaint was rejected, and the plaintiff was directed to vacate the property within three months."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.