IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 514 OF 2003 MRS. CATARINA MARIA MAGDALENA ....Petitioners FERNANDES,MAPUSA GOA Versus MR. MONICA ....Respondents FERNANDES,ASSAGAO,BARDEZ-GOA. SHRI VALMIKI MENEZES,SHRI M.P. MULGAONKAR Coram:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. Date:- 21st November, 2003 Heard. The only question that was contes ted before the Court below was whether t he entire property under survey No.94/2 forms part of the estate of the deceased , or whether the southern part of the pr operty surveyed under no.94/2 was exclus ively owned by Constancio Manuel Fernand es. This aspect has been considered by t he Court below after examining all the r elevant matters on record and answered a gainst the petitioner herein. The petiti oner however, contends that the premise on which the Court below has proceeded t o answer the issue that the petitioner h ad admitted that the interested parties Monica Fernandes and others have got right to the entire survey no.94/2, is a n error apparent on the face of the reco rd. It is in this context notice was iss ued to the respondent. 2. Pursuant to notice the respondent has appeared and her learned counsel has de monstrated from the evidence, in particu lar the cross-examination of the petitio ner, wherein such admission has been rec orded. In cross-examination it is stated :- "I admit that Monica and others are the co owners of this prop.................. ........................................ ......I did not mention to Talathi at that point of time that Monica and her sister has got right to this prop. It wo uld be correct to say that Monica and he r sister name should have been mentioned in the survey records of survey num.94/2 ..........." 3. To get over this position learned cou nsel for the petitioner contends that th e above-referred quotations are not admi ssion with regard to the fact which aris es for consideration, but on reading the entire evidence as a whole, it would be evident that the petitioner has been contesting the position. 4. To my mind, no fault can be found wit h the conclusion reached by the Court b elow in answering the issue against the petitioner, having appreciated the entir e evidence in its totality. It is not possible to suggest that the finding and conclusion reached by the Court below i s either perverse or manifestly wrong. If that is so, this is not a case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdi ction. 5. Petition dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.