VIJAY A PALEKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the appellant, Shri D.J. Pangam, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.2, Shri V. Sardessai, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 5 and Shri N.Costa Frias, learned Advocate for the respondent no.6 came to be heard. None appeared on behalf of the respondents no.3 and 4.

(2.) This appeal takes exception to the Order passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I by which she directed the appellant and the respondent no.6 to maintain the status quo while disposing of their applications for injunction giving rise to the present appeal. It needs reckoning that there were no cross- objections filed at the instance of the respondent no.6 whose application too was decided by the Adhoc District Judge-1 while passing the order as it did.

(3.) Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that he was a bonafide purchaser and had purchased the suit plot in auction held by the respondent no.2 and the suit property was allotted to him on 28.12.2009. He had paid the purchase price in January 2010 and the Sale Deed was executed in his favour on 19th December 2013. He had exercised the acts of possession from December 2009 onwards. The plaint filed by the respondent no.6 did not refer to any acts of interference by the appellant prior to January 2014. It was also his contention that the respondent no.4 had executed the Sale Deed on the basis of the Power of Attorney allegedly forged in favour of the respondent no.3 and who in turn had mortgaged the property to the respondents no.2 having availed a loan facility. His acts of default with the respondents no.2 had entailed the re-possession of the property after due process and the Tender Notice and the appellant was the successful bidder.