JOHN JOSEPH REBELLO Vs. DIOGO FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocates on both sides. The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law being whether the appellate Court was right in dismissing the appeal without considering the documentary evidence produced by the appellants at the stage of appeal? The appeal is finally heard by consent of the parties.

(2.) IT appears that the appellants/plaintiffs purchased the property under Sale Deed dated 21. 10. 1975. The sale deed indicated that the property sold under the sale deed being the plot admeasuring 2100 sq. metres. The boundaries of the plot are also mentioned in the sale deed. The sale deed stipulates that The said plot has been demarcated as shown in plan presented in duplicate with this deed and having an area of 2100 square metres represents 2100/8400 of the property. This makes it clear that the plaintiffs/appellants had purchased an area of 2100 sq. metres having boundaries indicated in the sale deed and the plot was demarcated as shown in the plan annexed to the sale deed.

(3.) WHAT happened was that at the appellate Stage, the appellate Court allowed the plaintiffs to produce two other sale deeds to indicate the area of plots under those sale deeds so as to show the boundaries of the plot purchased by the plaintiffs. Evidence was also led in that regard before the lower appellate Court. After the evidence was led, the plan concerning the plaintiffs' sale deed was allowed to be produced and that was taken on record and marked Exhibit 20 along with application Exhibit 19. It appears that this plan was not taken into consideration by the lower appellate Court. The plan, in fact, appears to be part of the sale deed. It demarcates the plot, particularly the area, of which boundaries are given in the sale deed.