BASILIO FERNANDESFERNANDES Vs. PANDURANG ALIAS PRITAM YESHWANT MALGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P. Rao, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) The appeal challenges the judgments passed by the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction simplicitor was dismissed and the appeal filed at their instance too came to be dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court.

(3.) It was the contention of Shri P. Rao, learned Advocate for the appellants that they had purchased a plot of land admeasuring 494 sq.mts. vide the Sale Deed dated 04/03/1972 and an area admeasuring 402 sq.mts. was encircled within the compound wall leaving a strip of land of the width of 1.5 mts. on the northern side admeasuring 28.5 sq.mts. to be used for the purposes of storing manure and other articles. There was a dispute concerning the boundary of the property belonging to the appellants and therefore the Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court ought to have appointed a Commissioner for its demarcation. It was his contention that there were ample powers in this Court to appoint a Commissioner and in that context placed reliance in Bento Antonio Gomes alias Antonio Bento Gomes v/s. Rosario Salvador Carneiro and others, 2014 4 MhLJ 366. He adverted to the judgment of the Trial Court where the learned Trial Court despite the examination of the expert witnesses by the appellants had not taken into the consideration their evidence in a proper perspective while non-suiting the plaintiffs and also adverted to the judgment of the First Appellate Court which again had committed an error in not appreciating the evidence of the expert in its proper perspective.