RUKMINI PAUTO VOILCAR Vs. RATNAKAR VASSUDEV CHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 30/08/2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge - I, South Goa, Margao in Civil Suit No.183/2004. The appellants are the defendants nos.5 & 9, the respondent no.1 is the plaintiff. Respondents nos.2,3 & 4 are the original defendants nos.6, 7 & 8. The respondents nos.5,6,7 & 8 are the defendants nos.1,2,3 & 4 in the original suit.

(2.) The respondent no.1 who is the plaintiff filed a suit against the appellants and the remaining respondents praying for a permanent injunction and for damages on the ground that he is the co-owner in possession of the property known as 'Gorgina' or 'Gorbata' situated in village of Molorem, Taluka Canacona, surveyed under no.186/26 of village Khola. It is further his case that the property stands in the name of Custam Malu Ferreiro alias Custam Malu Chari and Sanvlo Mono Ferreiro alias Sanvlo Mono Chari, both brothers and in view of the death of the said Sanvlo, who was the bachelor and without successors his share devolved upon his brother Custam. Said Custam expired leaving behind Malu Custam Chari as his sole successor and said Malu also died leaving behind Pandurang Malu Chari as his sole successor and said Pandurang died leaving behind Pandhari Pandurang Chari as his sole successor. The said Pandurang had four successors who have also expired and according to the respondent no.1 he is the only son of Vassudev Pandurang Chari, who was one of the successors of the said Pandhari. It is further his case that the record of rights have been promulgated and that his name as well as of the co-owners are figuring in the survey records. It is further his contention that the suit property is enrolled in the matriz records under no.282 and that somewhere in March, 2000, the appellants and the other respondents trespassed in the suit property and fell three teak wood trees standing therein which forced them to file a complaint before the respondents nos.7 & 8. It is further his case that the licence for cutting the trees obtained by the appellant no.1 is not in respect of the suit property, but is pertaining to the property surveyed under no.186/33 which is claimed by the the said appellants and the respondents nos.2,3 & 4.

(3.) The appellants and respondents nos.2,3 & 4 contested the suit by filing the written statement and according to them the suit is not maintainable as the respondent no.1 had no locus standi to institute the suit as he is not the owner of the property. It is further his case that towards the southern side of the property 'Gorgina' there lies the property of the appellants and the said respondents nos.2,3 & 4, which is known as 'Gorgina' or 'Gorbath' having matriz no.289 admeasruing 6,600 square metres and that only part of the said property has been recorded in the name of the appellants and the said respondents nos.2,3 & 4, and the other portion has been included in the property surveyed under no.186/26 of village Khola to the extent of an area of 2975 square metres. It is further their case that respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the said portion of the property and that they are in possession thereof and hence prayed that the suit be dismissed.