IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2008 MR. SURESH RAGHAV PRABHU PARRIKAR ... Appellant Versus MR. MACARIO ANTONIO FRANCISCO D'CUNHA AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate for the appellant Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advocate for the respondents Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 4th March, 2009 P.C. Heard Counsels for the appellant and respondents. The present appellant instituted a suit for declaratory that he is owner of the suit property i.e. the room which is situated admittedly on the plot belonging to the respondents/defendants. In the said suit defendant also filed counter claim claiming that the plaintiff was the licensee and the defendants/respondents were the owners of the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit as well as the Counter claim. It was found by the Trial Court that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the Counter claim because the wife was not joined as party to the suit. Defendant preferred an appeal before the District Judge being aggrieved by the fact that his counter claim was dismissed by the Trial Court. The Additional District Judge who heard the appeal however decreed the counter claim and directed the eviction of the plaintiff. The original plaintiff therefore feels aggrieved by the decree of eviction that has been passed against him in the Counter claim. Learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended before me that the decree could not have been passed because of the fact that the Courts have decided the question in the absence of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff who should have been made party to the suit. I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the Learned Counsel. The fact is that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property. Defendant is admittedly the owner of the open plot of land. Since the plaintiff has been held not to be the owner of the suit property and the suit structure is standing on the plot of the defendants the only inference that can be drawn is that it belongs to the defendant. Learned First Appellate Court has rightly held that decree needs to be passed against the present appellant/plaintiff. Learned Appellate Court has rightly held that the predecessors of the plaintiff are not necessary parties since it is the plaintiff alone who was in possession of the suit property. Suit was rightly filed against him alone on the basis of the title since he alone claims to be in possession. Since title is said to be established Learned Court of First Appellate was right in decreeing the Counter Claim. I find no substance in the appeal and no question of law is involved. Appeal is dismissed. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. /mbm