MARGARETH ANTAO Vs. INACIO DIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) I have gone through the impugned judgments of appellate Court and trial Court as well and also considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. The petitioners/applicants claim for ownership and possession of the suit cafetaria has been disbelieved by the courts below after a fairly detailed scrutiny of the documentary evidence made available by the parties, namely, the fact that the same suggests that the registration certificate of the establishment is in the name of the respondent No. 5, the Municipal licence stands in the name of the respondent No. 1 and till the year 1984 the lease agreement of the premises continued in the name of the same respondent No. 1, while on the other hand, there is no document to show that the lease was at any time surrendered by the said respondent No. 1.

(3.) FURTHER from their own pleadings it is seen that the applicant No. 1 admits having conducted the business of the restaurant from 1983 to 1989 on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and that only since 1989 she started doing it on her own account and or on her own behalf. The learned District Judge has rightly noted that applicants have nowhere stated as to how suddenly, i. e. from February 1989, the business which the applicant No. 1 clearly acknowledged in paragraph 5 of her affidavit as being conducted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 became their own so much so, no sale or gift was pleaded by them in this regard either in the plaint or in affidavit-in-rejoinder. The learned District Judge then observed that in the absence of any such pleadings the submission of their learned Counsel regarding a family arrangement under which the suit business was exclusively given to be owned and conducted by the applicants was unacceptable and therefore the applicants should be precluded from arguing such case and that if a family arrangement was made, then it should be an arrangement involving the whole family, i. e. all the children of the respondent No. 1. The finding are indeed correct and need not be disturbed at this stage while considering the aspect of a prima facie case which was required to be made out by the applicants to obtain the temporary relief sought for by them. On the question of irreparable loss and balance of convenience both the courts below were also, in my view, entirely justified in holding that in such circumstances the same was heavily tilting in respondents, favour and nothing thus can be faulted in this respect.