VINAYAK XETE LOTLIKAR (SINCE DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. AND PRABHAVATI V. LOTLIKAR, WIDOW (ANANTA V. LOTLIKAR AND HIS WIFE AND ORS.) Vs. EMERICIANO DA COSTA, AND HIS WIFE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The appellants are the plaintiffs who had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 266/1974/E praying as follows :

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs was that they are owners in possession of the property "SARVILEA MORODA", situated at Guirdolim, registered in the Land Registration Office of Salcete, under no. 16611 and in the Taluka Revenue office under Matriz no. 375. The boundaries of the said property as per the Land Registration Certificate as also the present boundaries were stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the plaint and it was further pleaded that the said property is as depicted in the croqui annexed to the plaint and marked as "X". The original plaintiff purchased the said property from the father of the defendant no. 1, by sale Deed dated 16/06/1950. He sold the same to his father -in -law who in turn gifted the same to the son of original plaintiff, who gifted it back to the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff further claimed that he built an agricultural house in the said property and carried out agricultural operations therein and enjoyed the fruit trees and paddy land. According to the plaintiffs, by misguiding the Mamlatdar of Salcete, the defendant no. 2 secured orders dated 30/9/74, under section of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), and harvested and took away the paddy from the portion of the land and uprooted six coconut saplings. The defendant no. 2 also filed a case under the Mamlatdar's Court Act, against the original plaintiff, to reopen the drain in the property. The plaintiffs contended that the alleged drain did not exist in the past and it was recent excavation done by the original defendants taking advantage of the absence of the original plaintiff who was in Bombay. By way of amendment carried out to the plaint on 13/11/1992, it was pleaded that the said property bears survey holdings no. 75/1, 76/1 and 104 (western portion, not being the paddy field).

(3.) UPON appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the property purchased by the original plaintiff, vide Deed of Sale dated 16/6/1950 corresponds to the property shown in the croqui and bearing survey no. 75/1, 76/1 and 104 (western portion). It is mainly on this ground that the suit came to be dismissed.