ARCELINA FURTADO Vs. EASTERN INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri V. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants.

(2.) THE above appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent no.1 inter alia to declare the right of ownership over the suit property came to be decreed.

(3.) THE respondent no.1 filed the suit on the ground that they are the owners in possession of the suit property surveyed under no.63/1 and 65/2 of Village of Majorda which according to the said respondent is a part and parcel of the property described in Land Registration Office under no.1944. The property was thereafter described by inscription no.11809 in favour of Joao Miguel Gomes and others. It is further their case that by Deed of Gift dated 12/03/1916, the suit property was gifted and partitioned. It is further their case that by Deed of Sale dated 30/09/1977, they purchased half share of Maria Fatima Filomena and Oliveira Vas of the suit property and as such they became owners in possession of an area of 20, 750 square metres of the property surveyed under no.63/1 and an area of 13,250 of the property surveyed under no.65/2 totally admeasuring an area of 34,000 square metres of the suit property. It is further their case that the name of the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 has been recorded in the occupants column in respect of the property surveyed under no.63/1 and that the name of the appellants has been fraudulently shown as occupants in Survey No.65/2. Consequently, as the appellants and the said respondent no.2 were trying to encroach in the suit property the suit came to be filed claiming reliefs for declaration that the respondent no.1 is the owner in possession of the suit property in respect of property surveyed no.63/1 and 65/2 as shown in the plan and also for an injunction restraining the appellants and respondent no.2 from in any way interfering in the property and for mandatory injunction. The respondent no.2/defendant no.1 filed the written statement inter alia contending that the respondent no.1 is in no way connected with the property surveyed under no.65/2 and that the respondent no.1 and the appellants are in collusion with one another. It is further their case that the property surveyed under no.63/1 is not part of the larger property described under no.1944. It is further their case that respondent no.1 was never in possession of the property surveyed under no.63/1 and that the same was always in possession of the said respondent no.2. It is further their case that the property surveyed under no.63/1, 63/3 and 63/4 originally belonged to the father of the said respondent no.2 and that upon his death the said respondent and his wife became exclusive owners thereof. It is further their case that the said respondents are owners in possession of the property surveyed under no.63/1 which is part and parcel of the property described in Land Registration Office under no.36572 which was owned by the father of the said respondent which thereafter devolved upon the said respondent.