NARAYAN HARI NAIK Vs. INACIO MARTINS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals directed against the same judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment since both involve fundamentally similar substantial questions of law.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 in both the Appeals, the late Inacio Martins (hereinafter called the late plaintiff), had instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 114/74/a in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, against the two appellants, namely, one Narayan Hari Naik, the appellant in Second Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1988 (hereinafter called the defendant No. 1) and one Nayantara Agrawal, the appellant in Second Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1988 (hereinafter called the defendant No. 2), seeking for eviction of the defendant No. 1 from the suit property known as "palmar Oiteiral do Predio Aivao" situated at Caranzalem, belonging to the defendant No. 2 as well as for restoration of its possession to him.

(3.) THE relevant facts of the case are that this property which is a coconut grove was consisting of 7 lotes. In October, 1968, the late plaintiff filed a suit against the two defendants, being Suit No. 157/1968, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji, for declaration and permanent injunction, praying for a declaration that an agreement dated 1-1-1968 allegedly entered into between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 in respect of the suit property was shame, bogus and inoperative in law and consequently that both the defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from causing him any kind of interference in the suit property. It was his case in the said suit that he was a lessee of 2 out of the 7 lotes of the suit property upto 1963 and that thereafter, the remaining 5 lotes were also given on lease to him by the defendant No. 2 on an yearly rent of Rs. 3,600/- payable in 3 instalments, being all instalments payable in advance. The plaintiff paid all the money regularly upto December, 1967. A criminal case bearing No. 106 of 1968 was filed against him by the defendant No. 2 based on the agreement entered into by her with the defendant No. 1,, namely, the agreement dated 1-1-1968 by virtue of which it was alleged that the defendant No. 1 became lessee of the said defendant No. 2. It was further stated by the late plaintiff in his plaint that he was not removed from the suit property by any legal process by the defendant No. 2 and that relying in the said agreement dated 1-1-1968 the defendant No. 1 entered into the entire suit property on or about the end of second week of June, 1968 to the greatest prejudice of the plaintiff. It was also stated that the cause of action arose on or about 15-6-1968 when to the greatest prejudice and contrary to law for the time being in force, the defendant No. 1 entered the suit property, forcibly attempted to evict the plaintiff and got seized the coconuts plucked by him. On the aforesaid averments the plaintiff sought a relief of declaration and injunction against the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit and it was his case that the plaintiff was the lessee of only 2 out of the 7 lotes of the suit property till the year 1964 by virtue of the auction held in 1956 for a specific period of 9 years; that on the expiry of the lease period, leases of the lessees including that of the plaintiff were duly terminated and the defendant No. 1 was put in possession of the entire suit property consisting of 7 lotes in 1965 under the lease agreement which was initially for a period of 1 year, subsequently extended for a further period of 2 years, namely, 1966 and 1967, and again further renewed for the years 1968 and 1969. It was further his case that the amount of stipulated rent was sometimes paid by him directly to the employee of the defendant No. 2 Datta B. S. Quencro and sometimes through the late plaintiff who was then his watchman. It was also his case that the late plaintiff had never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property or any part thereof after 1964.