RAJARAM RAU PATIL Vs. MARCEL DE PIEDADE BRAGANZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The declaration is sought in relation to lawful possession of the property Maida having various survey numbers, out of which survey Nos. 3/1, 4/1, 6/1 and 10/ 1 are disputed properties which have been referred to as the suit property. The appellant also sought declaration that the sale deed executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 on or about 11-4-85 and registered on or about 3-7-1985 in favour of defendant No. 3 in respect of the suit property is null and void. Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 are respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in this appeal. The appellant had also sought injunction to restrain defendants No. 3 to 5 in the suit who are respondents No. 3 to 5 in appeal from in any manner disturbing the possession of the appellant in respect of the suit property. Civil Judge, S. D. had initially granted ex-parte injunction on 20th April, 1988 and had issued show cause notice to the defendants. Defendant No. 3 namely respondent No. 3 in this appeal filed application under Order 39, Rule 4 read with section 151 C. P. C. and on this application, ex-parte order was passed varying the ex-parte injunction granted on 20-4-88 to some extent. The appellant had not filed any affidavit along with the application for injunction, but he filed affidavits in-rejoinder.

(2.) THE appellants case, in brief, is that the suit property was leased to him and defendant No. 6 Anandrao Patil who is respondent No. 6 in the appeal by lease deed dated 29th August, 1969. The period of lease was for nine years with effect from 1-1-1970 when the possession of the suit property was handed over to the appellant and respondent No. 6. In the lease deed, option was given to the appellant and respondent No. 6 for further renewal for a period of five years. According to the appellant, about 80 hectares of land from the suit property was brought under sugar cultivation and the said land was never surrendered by the appellant or respondent No. 6. The appellant claims that he has become deemed tenant of the suit property under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the said Act ). It was also revealed by the appellant that on 8-9-86 he had received summons in Regular Civil Suit No. 125/86 filed by the present respondent No. 6 against present respondents No. 1 to 5 and the appellant seeking permanent injunction against the present respondents No. 1 to 5. However, the said suit was withdrawn by the present respondent No. 6 on 11-2 88 by admitting that he had no right, title or interest in the suit property. According to the appellant, he came to know of this withdrawal of the suit only on 23-3-88 and it was on receipt of summons in this suit that he had come to know for the first time about the invalid and illegal transfers made by the present respondents No. 1 and 2 in favour of present respondent No. 3. It was also alleged that some of the respondents got their names entered in the Record of Rights fraudulently and the same cannot bind the appellant. On the above mentioned facts, the suit was filed.

(3.) THE defence put up by the respondents is that the lease had been terminated vide notice dated 12-2-82, after which the appellant had agreed to purchase the suit property by agreement of sale dated 11 -6-82, but as the sale deed did not materialise and the possession of the suit property was with respondents No. 1 and 2, which fact was specifically mentioned in the agreement of sale dated 11-6-82, respondents No. 1 and 2 had later sold the property to respondent No. 3.