BARBARA GOMES Vs. PRATAP MARDOLKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents.

(2.) The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 16/08/2006, on the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously contended that the property belonging to the appellant is corresponding to lote Nos. 77 and 78 which usurpations have been regularised in favour of the father of the appellant herein by the Communidade. The learned Counsel further points out that it is the case of the appellant that the said usurpations corresponding to lote Nos. 77 and 78 are surveyed in the record of rights under the Land Revenue Code under Survey Nos.59/0 and 59/1 of Village Dabolim, Mormugao Taluka. The learned Counsel further points out that the area legalised in favour of the appellant admeasures an area of 875 sq. metres and an area of 9,798 sq. metres. The learned Counsel further points out that these usurpations are located in the said survey numbers 59/0 and 59/1, which was originally surveyed under No.59/0 of Village Dabolim. The learned Counsel further points out that the ancestors of the appellant were in possession of the said disputed property since the year 1941 and this itself discloses that the disputed property belongs to the appellant. The learned Counsel further submits that the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that as the respondent failed to establish that lote Nos. 77 and 78 are not located in the property surveyed under No.59/1 of Village Dabolim, the suit of the appellant deserves to be decreed. The learned Counsel further submits that the first appellate Court erroneously interfered in the said Judgment, without examining the documents on record. The learned Counsel further submits that the first appellate Court has erroneously misconstrued the documents produced by the appellant to come to the conclusion that the property surveyed under No.59/1 does not correspondent to the property legalised in favour of the appellant being lote Nos. 77 and 78. The learned Counsel has, thereafter taken me through the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court to point out that the Court has erred to hold that the appellants have failed to establish the identity of the disputed property surveyed under No.59/1. The learned Counsel has also taken me through the document of usurpation referred to by the learned first appellate Court to point out that the statements therein have been misread by the appellate Court to allow the appeal, setting aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The learned Counsel, as such, points out that the substantial questions of law framed by this Court are to be answered in favour of the appellant herein.