LAWS(BOM)-2012-2-242

MARIA AQUINA MARTINS Vs. BRIGIDA ELVINA MARTINS

Decided On February 08, 2012
Maria Aquina Martins Appellant
V/S
Brigida Elvina Martins Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. The above appeal challenges the judgment passed by the Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondents to restrain the appellants from interfering with the suit property came to be decreed. The counter claim filed by the appellants to declare a Deed of Renunciation dated 27.06.1963 as null and void came to be dismissed.

(2.) SHRI Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the following counts. It is his first contention that the learned Judge was not justified to grant the permanent injunction in favour of the respondents as according to him, the respondents have failed to establish their possession in respect of the suit property. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the findings arrived at by the learned Judge to the effect that the respondents were in possession of the suit property are perverse and as such, the

(3.) DEALING with the next contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants to the effect that the Deed of Renunciation which was executed way back in the year 1963 is null and void, it would be appropriate to consider the stand taken by the appellants with regard to such Deed of Renunciation. In the written statement as well as in the counter claim filed by the appellants, the contention of the appellants was that they have never executed such type of Deed nor they were aware of its existence. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record have come to the conclusion that there was ample evidence on record to suggest that the appellants immediately after the execution of the said Deed of Renunciation had in fact obtained the certified copy thereof from the concerned Notary. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record have disbelieved the case made out by the appellants to the effect that the appellants had not executed such Deed of Renunciation.