LAWS(BOM)-2009-3-185

ARMANDO PEREIRA Vs. JUDE D SOUZA

Decided On March 18, 2009
ARMANDO PEREIRA Appellant
V/S
JUDE D SOUZA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the parties to both the petitions, are common. The petitioners are the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 while the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the original plaintiffs and the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 are the original defendants. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these petitions, are as follows :

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant No. 1. It is the contention of the defendant No. 1 that although the plot was purchased in the name of the defendant No. 3, the entire consideration was paid by the defendant No. 1. He is the exclusive owner of the suit property. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant No. 3 have any right in the suit property. The entire construction was done by the defendant No. 1 and he had spent for the same. It is further contention of the defendant No. 1 that the construction company, to whom a contract was given for construction, had filed a suit against the defendant No. 1 and at that time, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant No. 3 came forward to pay the amount and the defendant No. 1 had to satisfy the decree. Further, it is contention that the plaintiffs have in fact trespassed into the flat No. 4 and thus, have no right to be in possession.