JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present second appeal, plaintiff/appellant seeks to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.04.2012, passed by learned Addl. District Judge/VII F.T.C., Dehradun, in Civil Appeal no. 23 of 2010, Ratan Kaur vs Ranjeet Kumar Banerjee and others, whereby said Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant, as also judgment and decree dated 30.03.2010, passed by learned IV Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun, passed in O.S. no. 979 of 2001, Ratan Kaur vs Ranjeet Kumar, whereby suit of the appellant for permanent injunction was dismissed. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and respondents, following substantial question of law is framed in present second appeal: “As to whether a person in continuous and uninterrupted possession can be dispossessed without adopting due process of law?” 3. On the last day of hearing, learned counsel for the parties stated that no lower court record is required and the second appeal may be disposed of on the basis of certified copies already made available on record. In view of above submission, this Court proceeds to decide present second appeal on the basis of documents already available on record. 4. Plaintiff/appellant field an O.S. no. 979 of 2001 against the defendant/respondents in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) for obtaining a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The said O.S. was decided by learned IV Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehrdun, vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2010. Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, plaintiff/appellant filed Civil Appeal no. 23 of 2010, which was decided by learned Addl. District Judge/VII F.T.C., Dehradun, vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2012. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Still aggrieved against the same, present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. 5. Thus, there are concurrent findings of two courts below. 6. Learned trial court framed the issues as follows: i) Who is the owner of the disputed property? ii) In which capacity the parties to the suit are in possession of the suit property? iii) Whether the plaintiff is being evicted by the defendants without following due process of law? If so, its effect? iv) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 7. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1, Smt. Sampati Devi as PW2, Shiv Mohan as PW3, Mohd. iii) Whether the plaintiff is being evicted by the defendants without following due process of law? If so, its effect? iv) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 7. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1, Smt. Sampati Devi as PW2, Shiv Mohan as PW3, Mohd. Shareef as PW4, Rakesh Badhani as PW5, Nathu Singh as PW6 and Smt. Laxmi Devi as PW7. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 Sujeet Kumar, DW2 Kadam Singh and DW3 Smt. Jayanti Devi were examined. Parties also filed their documents in support of their contentions. 8. Issue nos. (i) and (ii) were decided together by learned trial court holding that the plaintiff was a trespasser and not a tenant in the suit property. Defendant no. 1 was held to be the son of the original owner Amulya Kumar Banerjee. In other words, Amulya Kumar Banerjee was the owner of the disputed property and after his death, defendant no. 1 became the owner of the same. Since defendant no. 1 Ranjeet Kumar Banerjee died during the pendency of the suit, therefore, his wife Vandana Banerjee and daughter Jayanti Banerjee became the owners, who sold the property in suit to defendant nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Again it was held, while deciding issue no. (iii), that the plaintiff is the trespasser over the suit property and is in unauthorized occupation of the same. While deciding issue no. (iv), it has been held that the plaintiff is not being evicted by the defendants otherwise than by due process of law. 9. Learned lower appellate court framed the points of determination as follows: (1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as a tenant? (2) Whether the defendants attempted to evict her otherwise than in due process of law? (3) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? 10. It is an undisputed fact that plaintiff nowhere claimed herself to be the owner of the suit property. Lower Appellate Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that no mistake was committed by the trial court and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was, accordingly, dismissed. 11. (3) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? 10. It is an undisputed fact that plaintiff nowhere claimed herself to be the owner of the suit property. Lower Appellate Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that no mistake was committed by the trial court and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Plaintiff/appellant in the instant case was not entitled to any relief, primarily because, no one, not even a trespasser can obtain a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against a rightful owner, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in A Shanmugam vs Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam and others, (2012) 6 SCC 430 and Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others vs Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs., AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1727. 12. Present appellant came alongwith the caretaker of the premises in question and, thereafter, caretaker also was dispossessed and, therefore, the plaintiff/appellant is, at the most, a licensee in the premises in question. She has no right or entitlement to remain in possession of the same. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to suggest that any effort was made by the defendants/respondents to evict the plaintiff/appellant otherwise than in due course of law. 13. Since a trespasser cannot claim relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the true owner and cause of action of the plaintiff/appellant has not been substantiated to show that she was being dispossessed otherwise than in due process of law, therefore, her suit was rightly dismissed by the courts below. 14. It will be useful to reproduce paragraph no. 97 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Maria Margarida’s case (supra). The same reads as under: “This Court in Puran Singh vs The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518 : ( AIR 1975 SC 1674 ) held that an occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession.” 15. Likewise in A. Shanmugam’s case (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “43.6. The watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look after the property can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The watchman, caretaker or a servant is under an obligation to hand over the possession forthwith on demand. Likewise in A. Shanmugam’s case (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “43.6. The watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look after the property can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The watchman, caretaker or a servant is under an obligation to hand over the possession forthwith on demand. According to the principles of justice, equity and god conscience, the courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a watchman, caretaker or servant who was only allowed to live into the premises to look after the same. 43.7. The watchman, caretaker or agent holds the property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession.” 16. Substantial question of law is, therefore, answered as follows: Since the plaintiff /appellant has acquired no right or interest in the property irrespective of her long stay or possession, therefore, she was not entitled to the relief of injunction against the true owner. 17. Second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.