RANJANA JAYANT SAUDAGAR Vs. ANIL MANOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal, the original defendants are before this Court challenging Judgment and Order dtd. 30/6/2004, passed by the Court of First Adhoc Additional District Judge, Panaji, whereby, Regular Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2004, filed by the original Plaintiffs stood allowed.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the parties are inter se related to each other. One Manohar Bordekar i.e. the original Plaintiff no. 3, who was Respondent no. 3 in the present Appeal and later deleted upon his death, was married to Mandakini Bordekar. They had three children i.e. the Appellant no. 1, the Respondent no. 1 and Respondent no. 4. The Appellant no. 2 is the husband of Appellant no. 1 and Respondent no. 5 is the husband of Respondent no. 4. The said Mandakini Bordekar purchased a property comprising two plots surveyed under nos. 243/5 and 244/22 admeasuring 600 square metres and 50 square metres respectively. Property at survey no. 244/22 was acquired for construction of public road and the present litigation concerns the residential house property in survey no. 243/5. The Appellants claimed that the said Mandakini Bordekar, wife of Manohar Bordekar, i.e. the father of Appellant no. 1, executed Will Deed dtd. 3/3/1981, bequeathing the property in favour of the Appellants. It was further claimed that a Gift Deed dtd. 24/11/1982, was also executed by him, in respect of part of the suit property in favour of Appellant no. 2. The original Plaintiffs i.e. the Respondents herein disputed execution of the Will Deed as well as the Gift Deed. They also disputed execution of a Sale Deed dtd. 6/1/1994, purportedly executed by Manohar Bordekar, whereby he had allegedly sold his undivided share in the suit property in favour of the Appellant no. 2 i.e. his son-in-law. The aforesaid Sale Deed was alleged to have been executed through a Power of Attorney holder.

(3.) The Respondents filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Appellants for declaring Will Deed dtd. 3/3/1981, Gift Deed dtd. 24/11/1982 and Sale Deed dtd. 6/1/1994 as null and void. They also prayed for an injunction restraining the Appellants from transferring or alienating the suit property without the intervention of the Respondents. The Appellants filed their written statement and opposed the reliefs claimed by the Respondents. They stood by the validity of the aforesaid documents. The rival parties led evidence in favour of their respective stands.