EVARISTO MANUEL SEQUEIRA Vs. PARISH PRIEST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge whereby she dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) The facts are as follows:

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement. They deny that the plaintiffs were their servants or the plaintiffs are their employees. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs are not the regular employees of the defendants. They were merely given honorarium for the work done by them. It is the contention of the defendants that the defendant No. 2 was appointed as a sacristan and, therefore, he was allowed to make use of the said room. It is further the contention of the defendants that the defendants continued to be in the lawful possession of the said room. The defendants had requested the plaintiffs to vacate the said room repeatedly, but the plaintiffs did not. It is further the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff No. 2 abandoned the service and had joined an establishment at Vasco-da-Gama. The defendants submit that the plaintiff No. 2 was given an ample opportunity to remove his belongings and to hand over the possession, but the plaintiff No. 2 did not accede and ultimately, therefore, on 15.04.2000, the defendants removed the belongings in presence of the parishioners and then, an inventory was prepared. The main contention of the defendants is that they were always in lawful possession and had never parted with the possession as such.