MR. MANUEL PEREIRA Vs. MARIA LETICIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition arises out of order dtd. 29/12/2011 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) in an application for execution filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Original decree holders), whereby an application filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 (Objectors) to the execution proceedings was allowed and it was directed that an enquiry under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) would be undertaken. The petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the original judgment debtors, who claim that the aforesaid application of the Objectors was not maintainable, which the Executing Court failed to appreciate.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed suit for recovery of possession and injunction against the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6, claiming that they were lawful co-owners of the suit property which they had inherited. They claimed that the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6 i.e. the original defendants had disturbed their possession in the suit property by cutting some trees therein, due to which a police complaint was filed and eventually the said suit was filed seeking possession of the share of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the property. The petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6 resisted the prayers made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, framed issues and the matter went to trial.

(3.) By the judgment and order dtd. 12/06/1986, the aforesaid Court found that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were able to prove that the suit property was half of the whole property described as "Quarta Parte do predio Santiago Pintado". It was also held that the other half of the said property belonged to one Maria Tereza Volifred Cortez. On the basis of the findings rendered in the judgment, it was held that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled for damages of Rs.9500.00 and the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 4 to 6 were directed to restore possession of the suit property i.e. half of the property called "Quarta Parte do predio Santiago Pintado" to the said respondent nos. 1 to 3.