COIRO MALGO VELIPO Vs. SOCIEDADE TIMBLO IRMAOS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court in favour of the original plaintiffs, decreeing the suit for injunction which was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs' suit is for injunction against the defendants restraining them from carrying on with plantation of any nature at a place called Tudou, in village Verlem, and interfering with the plaintiffs' plantation. The plaintiffs claimed to be owning a vast piece of land consisting of various villages of which boundaries were given in the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed to be growing paddy, coconut trees, fruits and having various gardens therein. The plaintiffs claimed their title under a Sale Deed dated 26th December, 1952. The plaintiffs claimed that their employee one Surya Shankar Gaunkar used to supervise the property.

(2.) IT was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants were staying in the place called Tudou. The defendants were allowed to erect their huts for residential purpose and were required to vacate them when called upon by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that they had raised a fence in an area of 180 feet x 126 feet in Tudou, about half a mile away from the houses of the defendants for cultivation of coconut trees. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants uprooted the coconut saplings and caused damage, against the acts of which the plaintiffs sued the defendants for injunction.

(3.) THE defendants denied the plaintiffs' ownership and possession of the entire property, as shown by the plaintiffs. However, the defendants claimed in para 4 of their written statement that they reside in ward Dumiavado of Village Tudou, in which they have their 13 houses for more than 100 years, The defendants belong to the members of Valipo, Gaunkar and Bogoto (Bhagat) families. They denied the gratuitous licence claimed by the plaintiffs in respect of their houses. The written statement showes 11 houses of Velipo, one house of Gaunkar and one house of Bogoto. It also shows that the property around the houses is enjoyed by the defendants by cultivation. This is claimed to be joint and ancestral property. The plaintiffs have no quarrel with the houses of the defendants, as also their plantation around the houses.