DEU KRISHNA MANDREKAR Vs. VISHNU KRISHNA HOBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.

(2.) The appellant plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji dated 30/08/2002, whereby appeal was partly allowed and part of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was decreed, whereby it was declared that defendant no. 1 is in exclusive possession of the western part of the suit property and the property under survey no. 2/14, was set aside. Further, it was declared that defendant no. 1 and the other heirs of Krishna Vishnu Hoble were the coowners of the property 'thorle Bagaita' bearing Land Registration No. 4276.

(3.) In fact, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that he has no grievance so far as the operative part of the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court is concerned, but has taken exception to the observations made in para 17 of the body of the judgment which reads thus: