THOMAS JOSE FILOMENA DE SOUZA Vs. GURUDAS NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Joseph Vaz, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Nigel Da Costa Frais, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. The above Writ Petition challenges the Judgment passed by the learned District Judge -I, Mapusa, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 172/2010, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Respondent challenging the Order dated 12.08.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 117/2010 came to be allowed and the application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that there exists a property bearing survey No. 66/2 situated in Village of Saligao and which is surveyed in the Record of Rights of the said Village in the name of Manuel Salvador D' Souza, who is the grandfather of the Petitioner No. 1. It is further their case that the house existing therein stands in the name of the Petitioner No. 1 and he has been in physical possession and in charge of the said house. It is further their case that the mother of the Petitioner No. 1 Olympia, was paying the house tax in respect of the house and that Manuel Salvador D' Souza died in the year 1912 and his wife Mrs. Victoria died in the year 1952. It is further their case that the father of the Petitioner No. 1namely Bernard Caitano Francisco D' Souza, expired on 22.04.1960. It is further the case of the Petitioners that they along with the other co -owners of the suit property and the house are in possession of the house existing therein. It is further their case that on 15.04.2010, when the attorney of the Petitioner No. 1 went to the suit property, he saw the Respondent with a labourer carrying out some activity in the suit house. It is further their case that on 19.04.2010, the said attorney noticed that the Respondent was attempting to trespass into the said property. It is further the contention of the Petitioners that the Respondent is in a habit of creating false documents in order to transfer the property in his name. Apprehending that the Respondent may interfere with the suit property, the Petitioners filed the suit praying, inter alia, for a permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent from interfering with the suit property. Pending the hearing of the said suit, an application for temporary injunction also came to be filed by the Petitioners.

(3.) THE learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties and considering the material adduced by the Petitioners and the Respondent, came to the prima facie conclusion that the Petitioners have established their right to the suit property and for the reasons stated in the Order dated 12.08.2010, the learned Trial Judge granted the injunction in favour of the Petitioners.