1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Second Appeal no.09 of 2011 1. Shri Prithidas Shambu Gauns Dessai, 64 years of age and his wife 2. Smt. Nirmala Prithidas Gauns Dessai 60 years of age, both residing at H.No.256/3 Camonsai, Xeldem, Quepem, Goa. 3. Shri Ramakant Rogunath Gauns Dessai, 80 years of age (expired) 3.a. Shri Vallabh Sadashiv Gauns Dessai 3.b. Smt. Purnima Vallabh Gauns Dessai 3.c. Dr. Satendra Sadashiv Gauns Dessai 3.d. Smt. Neena Satendra Gauns Dessai 3.e. Smt. Pramila Bhupal Gauns Dessai 3.f. Shri Bhupendra Bhupal Gauns. 3.g. Smt. Bhumiti Sidharth Gauns Dessai 3.h. Shri Sidharth Shrinnivas Gauns Dessai 3.i. Shri Raghuraj Sadasiv Gauns Dessai 3.j. Smt. Sita Raghuraj Gauns Dessai all residing at H.No.81, Dessaiwada, Avedem, Quepem, Goa. 3.k. Smt. Neela alias Renuka Rajendra Dessai 3.l. Shri Rajendra Shivajirao Dessai both residing at Gokulwadi, Sanquelim, Bicholim, Goa. 4. Smt. Janem Ramakant Gauns Dessai, 75 years of age, both residing at H. No.252, Avedem, Quepem, Goa. 5. Shri Shembu Balso Gauns Dessai, 40 years of age and his wife, 6. Smt. Pramila Shembu Gauns Dessai 2 35 years of age 7. Shri Anay Balso Gauns Dessai 35 years of age and his wife 8. Smt. Sudha Anay Gauns Dessai, 30 years of age, 9. Shri Srinivas Balso Gauns Dessai, 29 years of age, bachelor, 10. Smt. Madhura Dhulu Gauns Dessai, 45 years of age, 11. Shri Shanu Raghunath Gauns Dessai, 60 years of age and his wife. 12. Smt. Savita Shanu Gauns Dessai, 55 years of age, all residing at H.No.256/3, Camonsai, Xeldem,Quepem, Goa. … Appellants/ Ori Plaintiffs V e r s u s 1. Smt. Parvati Shanu Gauns Dessai (expired) by her legal representatives 1.a. Smt. Asha Govind Gauns Dessai 40 years of age and her husband 1.b. Shri Govind Gauns Dessai, 45 years of age, both residing at H. No.251, Camonsai, Xeldem, Quepem, Goa. 2. Smt. Savita Suresh Kakodkar, 75 years of age, Residing at Kakoda, Quepem, Goa. 3. Smt. Ashwini Anand Dessai major and her husband 4. Shri Anand Dessai, major, both residing at Mademola, Fatorpa, Quepem, Goa. ….. Respondents/Ori. Defendants No.1,3,5 and 6. 3 Mr. R.G. Ramani, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Respondents nos.3 and 4. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 2nd July, 2011. ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. Ramani, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pangam, learned counsel for the respondents nos.3 and 4. 2. By this Second Appeal the appellants takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 20th July, 2010 passed by the District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal no.144/2010 dismissing the appeal preferred against judgment and decree dated 29/9/2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem in Regular Civil Suit No.125/1998/B whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of sale deed dated 7/4/1989 and permanent injunction filed against the respondents/defendants was dismissed by the Trial Court. 4 3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit inter alia on the ground that the suit filed against the respondents nos.4,5,7, 8 and 10 was barred by limitation and also on the ground that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Lower Appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the decree dismissing the suit formulated the following points for determination: i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs are owners in possession of 2/3rd of suit property? ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that sale deed dated 07/04/1989, 11/06/1980 and 29/01/1988 are null and void? iii) Whether defendants no.5,6,7, 8 and 10 prove that suit is barred by limitation? iv) Whether the defenants prove that the suit is bad in law for non joinder of necessary parties? v) Whether the defendants 5 and 6 prove that the one third share sold to Smt. Dhakibai Collvonta was independent and separate unit and that the plot purchase by them is from the said separate and independent portion purchased by Smt. Dhakibai? 5 4. The Lower Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that the suit was barred by limitation and that the portion of the suit property sold to defendant no.5 was distinct and separate unit. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent no.3 and 4, I find that no case is made out for admission of the Second Appeal. In so far as challenge to the sale deed dated 7/4/1989 is concerned, both the Courts have rightly held that the suit filed in the year 1998 for declaration was barred by limitation. In so far as injunction is concerned, perusal of the evidence of PW.1 discloses that the reliefs in the suit were restricted to defendants nos.5 and 6 who are the respondent nos.3 and 4 in the appeal. The finding recorded by both the Courts below that specific portion of the suit property was sold to defendant no.5 cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference in Second Appeal. 6. This being the position, both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the prayer for injunction against defendants nos.5 and 6. 6 7. In view of the above, no case has been made out for interference with the decrees passed by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-