(Spl.-H.C.A.S.,C.D.,78-e) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 576 OF 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Note, Office Memoranda of Quorum, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. Palekar, advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. DATE : 17th December, 2004. P.C.: Heard Mr. Palekar, learned advocate for the petitioners, who are defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.27/2003. In the said Civil Suit a Civil Misc. Application no.91/2003 was filed by the plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Pernem and the Court was pleased to order status quo. Not being satisfied with the order of status quo the plaintiff filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.20/2004, which has been allowed by the learned ad-hoc Additional District (Fast Track Court) at Mapusa. While setting aside the order of status quo passed by the - 2 - trial Court, the lower Appellate Court has restrained the defendants from interfering in the suit property, except for residing in the house possessed by them and located in the suit property. The defendants are, therefore. before this Court. 2. The learned advocate for the defendants submitted that they had denied the title of the plaintiff Dr.Susan Szilagyi Lad to the suit property on the ground that she was not the wife of the original land owner, i.e. Jaiwant, s/o Anant Lad. It is evident that the power of the Court was also questioned to entertain an application for injunction on the grounds that the issue of tenancy was pending before the competent authority and the Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. It was also contended that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. - 3 - 3. The Court noted that the plaintiff had submitted marriage certificate as a proof of her marriage with Jaiwant Anant Lad and also copy of the Gift Deed dated 22nd October, 1935, by which the plaintiff’s in-laws had gifted the suit property to her husband. The name of the late husband of the plaintiff was also entered in the occupants column of the record of rights in respect of the suit property and this entry was made much before 1995. The name of the defendant no.1 on the other hand is entered in the tenant’s column of the record of rights on or about 27th April, 1995, on account of the order passed by the Joint Mamlatdar. However, the said order was set aside and ultimately, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.306/2002 the issue of tenancy is still pending. the lower Appellate Court on the basis of the documents recorded a prima facie finding that the plaintiff is - 4 - the owner of the suit property and the ownership followed the possession. While holding so, the lower Appellate Court also noted that except for the affidavit there was no proof submitted by the defendants even prima facie, in support of their contentions that they were in possession of the suit property, except the house which they are occupying. 4. Having considered the arguments advanced and the reasoning given by the lower Appellate Court in support of the impugned Order, there is no case made out for interference in the said order under the supervisory powers of this Court. Hence the petition must fail. The same is hereby rejected summarily. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.