RAVINDRA G KALANGUTKAR Vs. SANJAY ALIAS SACHIN PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant second appeal is presented by the original plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Bicholim, in Regular Civil Suit No. 54/2002/A dated 3rd October, 2005, confirmed by the District Judge-2, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.57/2006 on 9.8.2007. The appellant-original plaintiff presented a suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of survey No. 260/4 of Village Mayem. According to the plaintiff, the possession of the property has been taken over by the plaintiff on the basis of a lease agreement from the family of one Silva Noronha. The said property, along with some other properties of Silva Noronha family, were declared as evacuee property. The name of the Government of Goa is recorded in the survey records in the occupant's column. It is the contention of the plaintiff that in recording the name of one Prabhakar Vittu Kalangutkar, an error was committed showing him as having "rakhan" of the property. The plaintiff claimed that he was in possession of the property and the defendants do not have any entitlement. However, they are causing interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendants have presented written statement and controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the suit property was being managed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. They denied having made any attempts to trespass into the property or they threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. According to the defendants, they are in exclusive cultivatory possession of the suit property bearing survey No.260/4, of which their father was a tenant and the property devolved on them after demise of their father. They claim that their father had become a deemed purchaser of the property and that the plaintiff has no entitlement.

(3.) At the time of trial, the plaintiff led oral evidence on his behalf. The defendant neither cross examined the witnesses produced by the plaintiff, nor led any independent evidence to substantiate their case. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit which judgment and decree has been confirmed by the first appellate Court.