ESSO RAGHU KHANDOLKAR Vs. SONU ESSO KHANDOLKAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, wherein the suit of the present appellants/plaintiffs came to be decreed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda.

(3.) The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for declaration, to the effect that they had lease hold rights to the area of 21 sq. mts. of land occupied by the suit structure in which the suit gada was located as against the defendant no. 6, to direct the defendants to handover to the plaintiffs, the suit structure in which the suit gada was located and to restrain the defendants no. 1 to 5 by permanent injunction from entering, interfering with and disturbing the plaintiffs' possession and for direction to the defendants to pay compensation of Rs. 50/ per day from 16/02/1987 up to the date of handing over the possession of the suit structure. The plaintiffs' case was that they were the leaseholders of the said portion admeasuring 21 sq. mts. of land from survey no. 97/2 of Village Khandola of Ponda Taluka, which survey holding belonged to defendant no. 6 and that with the consent of defendant no. 6, they had erected the suit structure, made of mud and stone pillars and covered with mangalore tiles, in the said leased portion and further that in this suit structure they had installed the suit gada for sale of beedies, cigarettes, eatables etc. and other sanitary articles. It was the case sought to be made out by the plaintiffs that the suit structure and suit gada were existing in the said place for more than 20 years and the gada was always run and managed by the plaintiffs and the said lease was created by the father of defendant no. 6 in favour of the father of the plaintiff no. 1, on oral understanding on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/ as ground rent. The defendant no. 1 is the uncle of plaintiff no. 1, the defendants no. 2, 4 and 5 are the sons of the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 is the wife of the defendant no. 2. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants no. 1 to 5 have their common residential house no. 204 at Bag Candola which has 4 divisions and in one of the said divisions the defendant no. 1 to 5 used to reside, in the second division the plaintiffs and his family resided, in the third division one Sagun Esso Candolcar and his family resided and in the fourth division one Mucund Esso Candolcar and his family resided. According to the plaintiffs, sometime in February 1987, the defendants requested them to allow them to keep some articles in the suit structure stating that they wanted to carry out some repairs to the portion of the common house occupied by them and the plaintiffs agreed to allow the defendants to keep the said items for few days. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that the defendants taking advantage of the facilities given by the plaintiffs, on 15/02/1987, in the evening time, shifted themselves to the suit structure along with household items and forcibly started residing therein and refused to vacate. The plaintiffs lodged police complaint and, thereafter, visited the Mardol Outpost various times, but all in vein. Hence, the suit.