RAGHURAJ VASSUDEO DESHPRABHU DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES Vs. RAJENDRA VASSUDEO DESHPRABHU BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals challenge the common Judgment & Decree dated 19.3.1994 delivered by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Special Civil Suits No.416/86/A, 420/86/A, 16/87/A and 499/87/A. Special Civil Suit No.416/86/A was filed by the deceased Raghunathrao Vassudev Prabhu Dessai Deshprabhu alias Raghuraj Deshprabhu and is being prosecuted by his legal heirs, who are appellants in the four appeals before this Court. Other Special Civil Suits were filed by respondent Rajendra in these appeals. Rajendra had also filed First Appeal No.73/1994 aggrieved by part of adjudication in Special Civil Suit No.499/87/A. All the civil suits were consolidated vide Order dated 15.3.1991. Raghunath died during the pendency of the special civil suit filed by him on 10.11.1987.

(2.) THE relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Atmaram Vassudev Porobo Dessai Deshprabhu, Viscount of Pernem happened to be the grand father of Raghuraj, as also Rajendra. Vassudev son of Atmaram was their father. Vassudev was only son of Atmaram and during the life time of Atmaram, Raghuraj was only male child of Vassudev, i.e. only grand son of Atmaram. Atmaram executed Deeds of Gift dated 29.1.1925, 17.1.1927 and 20.6.1929, gifting several properties to his son Vassudev, but then granted him only limited right, that is life interest and obliging him to transmit those properties in favour of Raghuraj after his death. Atmaram also made a Will dated 22.5.1933, bequeathing certain properties to Raghuraj and again appointing Vassudev as Trustee. As per the said Will, the palace and interlinked old house was given to Raghuraj. On death of Atmaram Deshprabhu, inventory proceedings bearing No.194/1933 were initiated in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mapusa and Raghuraj was declared as interested party in those proceedings. As Raghuraj was then minor, he was represented by his father Vassudev. The defendant in the suit filed by Raghuraj and plaintiff in other suit, Rajendra is the second son of Vassudev and he was born after death of Atmaram. On 06.12.1956, Vassudev renounced all his right in favour of Raghuraj by executing a Deed of Renunciation and Exchange. Certain properties were exchanged between Raghuraj and Rajendra vide that Deed. Raghuraj, his parents and Rajendra lived in the residential house (palace) till death of Vassudev in 1962. It was the case of Raghuraj that after death of Vassudev, by virtue of Will he became the absolute owner of palace, guest house, other structures along with appurtenances of this property and he was in possession of the suit property along with the household articles and antique items kept in Devghar and Museum. He stated that he was looking after all these properties exclusively and he also constructed a road by spending Rs.50,000/-. Rajendra was staying with him with his consent and due to cordial relations he was also permitted to have one set of keys of family worship room. Taking undue advantage of this permission, Rajendra surreptitiously inserted his name as occupant in revenue records i.e. in Form No. I & XIV of the residential house. He also described various gold and silver articles used for pooja and decorations and stated that the same were kept in a small room annexed to worship room. Raghuraj complained that he could not have access to that small room where gold and silver articles were kept till said worship room was opened. He also stated that there as museum on first floor which displayed various valuable articles and antiques. On 21.5.1986, he noticed that a number of those articles were missing and he then requested Shri Vishwanath Thakur alias Dada Thakur to find out from Rajendra whether he had removed those articles. On 29.5.1986 Rajendra refused to hand over keys to Raghuraj and did not open the doors of worship room. Plaintiff Raghuraj then forwarded registered letter dated 31.5.1986 and enclosed with it list of articles missing from the museum. Ultimately, the defendant claimed that articles kept in museum were gifted to him and many articles were kept by defendant Rajendra himself in that museum for display. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed declaration for possession of articles and for injunction to restore all articles removed by Rajendra. He also sought permanent injunction restraining Rajendra from closing door which gave access to Raghuraj to a room known as Makharachi Kudd and to restore all museum articles.

(3.) THE third Special Civil Suit No.16/1987/A was filed by Rajendra against Raghuraj and his family members to restore the movable items and hand over possession thereof. This pertains to various articles in museum located on the first floor of palace and in the month of June, 1986 and July, 1986, in the absence of Rajendra, Raghuraj trespassed into the museum and removed padlock on 17.7.1986, Rajendra replaced the lock removed by Raghuraj. But again in the absence of Rajendra in the month of August, Raghuraj forcibly broke open the door located between Shastra Pooja room and took possession of that room. After taking this possession, Raghuraj filed Special Civil Suit No.416/86/A contending that he was in possession of museum. Raghuraj denied all these allegations in the written statement and reiterated his earlier stand that Rajendra removed the antiques and valuables.