ANANDI BHICARO VELUSKAR Vs. KUSTANAND VITHU VELUSKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kansar, learned Counsel for the respondents in Second Appeal No. 147/2005 and Mr. Kansar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the respondent in Second Appeal No. 162/2005. Both these appeals can be disposed of by common judgment since both these appeal are preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 29th June, 2005 passed by the Ist Advocate hoc Additional District Judge, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No. 140/2004.

(2.) The appellant in Second Appeal No. 147/05 is the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 41/2001 before the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Sattari at Valpoi and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the said suit. The plaintiffs filed the said suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for correction of survey records. The plaintiffs claimed title to the property known as Santonio Vaddo situated in the Village of Velus of Sattari Taluka, Goa surveyed under No. 85, subdivision 2 of Village Velus. The above suit was contested by the defendant and after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had not proved their title or possession in respect of the suit property and, on the contrary, the defendant had proved her possession in respect of the suit property. The appeal preferred against the judgment and order of the trial Court being Regular Civil Appeal No. 140/2004 has been partly allowed by the appellate Court and the appellate Court has directed insertion of the names of the plaintiffs in Form I and XIV, in other rights column as occupants of one room of dwelling house situated in the suit property.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in Second Appeal No. 162/2005 filed by the plaintiffs. However, Second Appeal No. 147/2005 filed by the defendant is admitted on the following substantial question of law: 1. After having held that the defendant/appellant is owner in possession of the suit property and the suit house existing therein, whether the appellate Court has exceeded jurisdiction vested in it by ordering that the names of the respondents/plaintiffs should be inserted in other rights column in the survey records as occupants 3. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, both these appeals are disposed of at the admission stage itself.