ARMANDO PEREIRA Vs. KRISHNANATH V MALVANCAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE deceased respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction in relation to suit property "vale Verde" or "butabaradacho Ollo," surveyed under No. 54/1 of Reis Magos village at Pilerne. An application for temporary injunction was filed seeking to restrain the applicants from interfering with the suit property. This application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. The deceased respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, who, by the impugned judgment dated 3rd March, 1997, set aside the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division and granted the application for temporary injunction filed by the deceased respondent. This order is challenged in this revision.

(2.) THE suit property admittedly belongs to the Communidade of Pilerne and it stands recorded in the records of the Communidade in favour of the heirs of Manuel Vaz. This property is also recorded under Matriz No. 115 in favour of the heirs of Manuel Querobino Vaz. Both the parties to the litigation claimed the suit property through the heirs of Manuel Vaz. The respondent, now deceased, claimed the suit property as sub-lessee of Fr. Vaz, who was lessee of the Communidade and the applicants claim the suit property on the basis of two Agreements dated 7th October, 1982 and 21st October, 1986, executed by Maria Assuncao Vaz, who claims the suit property through heirs of the said Manuel Vaz. The deceased respondent claimed to be in possession of the suit property from 1960, whereas the applicants claim to be in possession of the suit property from the year 1982.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Shri S. D. Lotlikar, appearing on behalf of the applicants, has submitted before me that the Appellate Court erred in interfering with well-reasoned order of the trial Court and in doing so has ignored the relevant factors taken into consideration by the trial Court. According to him, the deceased respondent had failed to prove any document in the nature of sub-lease or rent receipts in order to substantiate his claim in relation to the suit property; that no affidavit of Pandurang Naik, to whom the cashew and mango crop from the suit property is alleged to have been sold in the past, was filed; that the affidavits on behalf of the applicants were wrongly discarded, while accepting the affidavits filed on behalf of the deceased respondent and that the registration certificate, inventory proceedings and other documents produced by the applicants had been over looked by the District Judge. It is further contended that the respondent had failed to prove any connection with the heirs of Manuel Vaz in whose favour the property is registered in Communidade records and that the deceased respondent is a rank trespasser, having no tittle of title in respect of the suit property.