NARENDRA VOIKUNT RAIKAR Vs. AMARAL PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The unsuccessful defendant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Margao dismissing his appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Civil Court dated 30/09/1997 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration and perpetual injunction as a consequential relief. Further, it was also directed by the trial Court that the Collector, on the basis of order passed by the Court, should make necessary changes in the Survey Record.

(3.) The plaintiff came with the case that the suit mill with an area of 134 sq. metres was taken over for consideration by one Smt. Maria Francisca Fernandes, his grandmother, in the name of one Shaba Bojru Naik Bagat from Shri Madev Kane, somewhere in the year 1933. After the death of said Maria Fernandes, the same was transferred in the name of her elder daughter, Dumetilda Fernandes in the year 1970, then in the name of her husband Raymond Carneiro and in the year 1973, it was transferred in the name of the plaintiff who started running the mill. The plaintiff's case was that the said mill was registered in his name, the licence of the mill was in his name, the house tax in respect of the said mill having house no. 1140 was also paid by him. According to the plaintiff, he was in possession of the said mill since the year 1973 without any objection from the defendant or from any other person and he was running the mill as his own and he acquired the right of ownership adversely against the defendant or any other person who claims a right to the said mill in the area of 134 sq. metres. He further alleged that the defendant had no right, title and interest in the said mill. The plaintiff was openly paying all the taxes and behaved and proved that he was enjoying the said mill in the area of 134 sq. metres as the true owner of the same. He also sought to make out the case that he wanted to carry out the construction and repairs of the mill but the defendant obstructed him and as such the cause of action arose for filing the suit for declaration as well as for permanent injunction against the defendant.