GOA UNIVERSITY Vs. HAROON EBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants who are the original defendants are challenging the order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the District Judge-1, North Goa Panaji, pursuant to which he allowed the respondent no.1's application for temporary injunction and restrained the appellants, their agents, servants etc., from blocking and obstructing the suit access as shown in the Plan.

(2.) Mrs. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants adverted to the pleadings in the plaint and raised a question whether the conduct of the plaintiff was at all equitable to grant the relief of injunction as prayed for. She adverted to the various correspondence forming a part of the proceedings and submitted that there was no right of easement spelt out by the plaintiff to entitle him to an access through the property of the appellantsdefendants.

(3.) Mrs. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants also invited attention to the report of the PWD dated 10.4.2012 which again referred to the peripheral road without any reference to the traditional access as also the letter of the Executive Engineer dated 16.9.1998 addressed to the plaintiff wherein again a reference was made to the work of the peripheral road being undertaken by the PWD on receipt of the entire costs and without a reference to any traditional access. She referred to the letter of the Executive Engineer addressed to the appellants dated 2.3.2000 which once again made a reference to the construction of the peripheral road along the boundary for the security of its inmates and once again reiterating the necessity of the construction of a peripheral road. The respondent-plaintiff had not taken any action in respect of the peripheral road from 2005 till 2015. A reference was also made to the letter of the respondent-plaintiff addressed to the appellants by which he had conveyed his intention to carry out the development and agricultural activities for which he needed an access to his property meaning thereby that there was no activity whatsoever carried on in the plaintiff's property unlike his case to the contrary till the year 2011. Rather, she invited attention to the appellants' letter dated 26.7.2011 pursuant to which they had made it abundantly clear to the respondent-plaintiff that the land of the appellants shall not be spared to construct a road to provide an access to his private property and which letter was not produced by the respondent-plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit.