-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 04 OF 2009 1. Mr. Alberto Vas son of late Joaquim Santana Vas, major, married, aged 76 years, retired, resident of House no. 141, Abade Faria Road, Margao, Goa. 2. Mrs. Isabel Rufina Margarida Divina Dias e Vas, Wife of Alberto Vas, major, married, aged 63 years, housewife, resident of H. No. 141, Abade Faria Road, Margao, Goa. 3. Mr. Antonio Francisco Xavier Vas, son of Mr. Alberto Vas major, married, aged 44 years, Service, resident of House no. 141, Abade Faria Road, Margao, Goa. 4. Mr. Nelson Vas son of late Basilio Vas, major, married, aged 42 years, Service, resident of House no. 141, Abade Faria Road, Margao, Goa. 5. Mrs. Rona Vas, wife of Mr. Nelson Vas, major, married, aged 40 years, housewife, resident of House no. 141, Abade Faria Road, Margao, Goa. 6. Mr. Ralph Vas, s/o. Late Jose Francisco Vas major, married, aged 40 years, Service, resident of Mahanagar-1, Co-op Housing Society Ltd., H-Block, Ground Floor, G-1, Madel Grande, Margao, Goa. 7. Mrs. Island Fernandes E Vas wife of Mr. Ralph Vas, major, married, aged 40 years, Service, resident of Mahanagar-1, Co-op Housing Society Ltd., H-Block, Ground Floor, -2- G-1, Madel Grande, Margao, Goa. 8. Mr. Edvino J. S. Vas major, married, aged 44 years, business, resident of Rosary Complex, BG-1, Star Electricals & Hardware Buticas, Navelim, Salcete Goa. 9. Mrs. Ismenia D' Souza e Vas w/o. Mrs.Edvina J. S. Vas major, married, aged 42 years, housewife, resident of Rosary Complex, BG-1, Star Electrical & Hardware, Buticas, Navelim, Salcete, Goa. 10. Mrs. Carmen Da Silvia Vas e Rodrigues, D/o. Late Jose Francisco Vas, w/o. Mr. Martinho Roidrigues, major, married, aged 47 years, Housewife, resident of H. No.1316/C, East Daman, Raia, Salcete, Goa. 11. Mr. Martinho Rodrigues, s/o late Teodorio Rodrigues major, married, aged 52 years, service, resident of H. No. 1316/C, East Daman, Raia, Salcete, Goa. 12. Mrs. Sarita Devikarani e Pissurlekar, wife of Mr. Deepak Pissurlekar major, married, aged 34 years, service, resident of Fisherman's Colony, Building No. 5, Second Floor, Flat No. 180, Mahim (West) Mumbai. 13. Mr. Deepak Pissurlekar, major, married, aged 37 years, service, resident of Fisherman's Colony, Building No. 5, Second Floor, Flat No. 180, Mahim (West), Mumbai. 14. M/s Mahalaxmi Builders Proprietary firm through Mr. Ramrao Lotlikar, Reg. Office Shriram Chambers, 1st Floor, Pajifond, Margao, Goa. 15. Mr. Ramrao Lotlikar sole proprietor Mahalaxmi Builders, -3- s/o. Late Damodar Lotlikar, major, married, businessman, resident of Gogol, Margao, Goa. The Appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 6 to 13 are Represented herein by their Attorney Shri Ramrao Lotlikar-Appellant No. 15, Under Power of Attorney dated 28.8.2004 Under No. 6318 dated 28.8.2004 before Notary Public Shri Narhari D. Keni, South Goa, Margao, The Appellants No. 4 and 5 are Represented herein by their attorney Shri Ramrao Lotlikar-Appellant No. 15 under Power of Attorney dated 18.3.2008 under No.33021 dated 18.3.2008 before Notary Public Shri Narhari D. Keni. …... Appellants. V e r s u s 1. Mrs. Maria Rosa Joanita Cruz e Costa Fernandes Widow of late Jeronimo Costa Fernandes Alias Roberto Jeronimo Jose Vaz e Costa Fernandes alias Robert Costa Fernandes, Major, aged 58 years, service, resident of House No. 630, behind Rosary Church, Fatorda, Margao, Salcete, Goa. 2. Mr. Alvaro Roy Costa Fernandes, son of late Jeronimo Jose Vaz e Costa Fernandes, major, aged 35 years, unmarried, Engineer, resident of House No. 630, Behind Rosary Church, Fatorda, Margao, Salcete, Goa. 3. Mrs. Concecao M. Mascarenhas, e Costa Fernandes, widow of late Mr. Miguel Costa Fernandes major, married, aged 60 years, resident of house no. 729, neat St. Joaquim Chapel, Borda, Salcete, Goa, 403602. 4. Dr. Mrs. Maureen Costa Fernandes e Azavedo, d/o. Late Mr. Miguel Costa Fernandes, w/o. Mr. Lawrence Azavedo, major, married, aged 36 years, -4- Doctor, resident of house no. 729, neat St. Joaquim Chapel, Borda, Salcete, Goa, 403602. 5. Dr. Lawrence Azavedo, major, married, aged 39 years, Doctor, resident of House No. 729, neat St. Joaquim Chapel, Borda, Salcete, Goa, 403602. 6. Dr. Mrs. Myra Costa Fernandes, D/o. Late Mr. Miguel Costa Fernandes, major, unmarried, aged 35 years, Doctor, resident of house no. 729, neat St. Joaquim Chapel, Borda, Salcete, Goa, 403602. 7. Dr. Mr. Melwin Costa son of late Mr. Miguel Costa Fernandes, major, unmarried, aged 33 years, Doctor, resident of house no. 729, neat St. Joaquim Chapel, Borda, Salcete, Goa, 403602. 8. Mr. Milfred Costa Fernandes son of late Mr. Miguel Costa Fernandes, major, unmarried, aged 31 years, Engineer, resident of house no. 729, neat St. Joaquim Chapel, Borda, Salcete, Goa, 403602. 9. M/s. Vilma M. Antonia Costa Fernandes D/o. Mrs. Alvaro Costa Fernandes, Major, spinster, aged 69 years, Retired, resident of Margaret Court, First Floor, behind Madonna School, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. 10. Mr. Ligorio Francis Pimenta s/o. Mrs. Anthony Custodio Pimenta major, married, aged 41 years, business, resident of H. No. 204/C Shalom, Combhat, near Joemitra Woods, Maina, Curtorim, Goa. 11. Mrs. Suzette Crasto e Pimenta w/o. Mrs. Ligorio Francis Pimenta major, married, aged 33 years, Architect, resident of H. No. 204/C Shalom, Combhat, near Joemitra Woods, -5- Maina, Curtorim, Goa. 12. Mr. Lenny Pimenta, s/o of Mr. Anthony Custodio Pimenta, major, married, aged 37 years, service, resident of Pimenta House, Tambettim, near Joemitra Woods, Maina, Curtorim, Goa. 13. Mrs. Vendy Pimenta, w/o. Mr. Lenny Pimenta, major, married, aged 30 years, Professor, resident of H. No. 204/C Shalom, Combhat, near Joemitra Woods, Maina, Curtorim, Goa. 14. Mrs. Doreen Pimenta e Sequeira, D/o. Late Mr. Anthony Custodio Pimenta w/o. Mr. Stanley Sequeira, major, married, aged 39 years, Service, resident of Shanti Nagar, Section-9, B-16, Flat No. 102, Mira Road, (East) Thana Dist, Mumbai 401 107. 15. Mr. Stanley Sequeira, major, married, aged 41 years, Service, resident of Shanti Nagar, Section-9, B-16, Flat No. 102, Mira Road, (East) Thana Dist, Mumbai 401 107. 16. Mrs. Dale Etelvina Pimenta e Mohite D/o. Late Anthony Custodio Pimenta, w/o. Mr. Sunil Mohite, Major, married, aged 35 years, Section-9, Kaushal, C-57, flat No. 204, Mira Road, (East) Thana Dist. Mumbai 401 107. 17. Mr. Sunil Mohite, Major, married, aged 40 years, Service, resident of Shanti Nagar, Section-9, Kaushal, C-57, flat No. 204, Mira Road, (East) Thana Dist. Mumbai 401 107. 18. Mrs. Delise Pimenta e Cardozo, D/o. Late Mr. Anthony Custodio Pimenta w/o. Mr. Clifford Cardozo, -6- Major, married, aged 33 years, Service, resident of H-10, Lourdes Villa, St. Plus E Co-Hsg. Society, Nahur Road, Mulund (W) Mumbai. 19. Mr. Clifford Cardozo, msajor, married, aged 40 years, service, resident of B-10, Lourdes Villa, St. Plus E Co-Hsg Society, Nahur Road, Mulund (W) Mumbai. 20. Mr. Oscar Costa Fernandes s/o. Mr. Alvaro Costa Fernandes, major, married, aged 65 years, Retired, resident of H. No. 156, Fr. Miranda Road, Margao, Goa. 21. Mrs. Santana Luis e Costa Fernandes, w/o. Mr. Oscar Costa Fernandes major, married, aged 54 years, Retired, resident of H. No. 156, Fr. Miranda Road, Margao, Goa. 22. Mr. Mervin Soares, s/o. Late Mr. Hector Soares, major, married, aged 58 years, service, resident of H. No. 156, Fr. Miranda Road, Margao, Goa. 23. Mrs. Deniza Soares s/o. Mr. Mervin Soares, major, married, aged 55 years, Service, resident of H. No. 156, Fr. Miranda Road, Margao, Goa. 24. Mrs. Lucinda D' Souza, D/o. Late Mr. Hector Soares, Major, married, aged 57 years, Service, resident of H. No. 156, Fr. Miranda Road, Margao, Goa. 25. Mr. Connie D' Souza, major, married, aged 59 years, Service, resident of H. No. 156, Fr. Miranda Road, Margao, Goa. 26. Mr. Anthony Rallin Costa Fernandes, s/o. Late Mr. Jeronimo Jose Vas e Costa -7- Fernandes, major, aged 35 years, Unmarried, Engineer, resident of H. No. 630, behind Rosary Church, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. 27. Mrs. Annette Rochelle Costa Fernandes e Noronha, D/o. Late Mr. Jeronimo Jose Vaz e Costa Fernandes, w/o. Mr. Neville Noronha, major, aged 28 years, married, Architect, Resident of H. No. 630, Behind Rosary Church, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. 28. Mr. Neville Noronha, major, aged 31 years, married, service, resident of H. No. 630, behind Rosary Church, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. 29. Government of Goa, through Chief Secretary, Porvorim, Goa. 30. Director of Land Survey, Land Survey Department, Panaji, Goa. 31. Mrs. Nancy Vas e Rebello D/o. Late Basilio Vas, w/o. Mr. Savio Rebello Major, married, aged 37 years, Housewife, resident of Jaldhara Apts A-4, First Floor, Madel, Margao, Goa. 32. Mr. Savio Rebello major, married, aged 39 years, service, resident of Jaldhara Apts, A-4, first floor, Madel, Margao, Goa. 33. Mrs. Olivia Vas e Gracias, D/o. Late Basilio Vas, W/o. Mr. Silvester Gracias, major, married, aged 44 years, housewife, resident of Ashad Co-op Housing Society Ltd., H- Block, Ground Floor, H-04, Madel Grande, Margao, Goa. -8- 34. Mr. Silvester Gracias, major, married, aged 45 years, service, resident of Ashad Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., H- Block, Ground Floor, H-04, Madel Grande, Margao, Goa. 35. Mrs. Blendina Vas e Andrade D/o. Late Basilio Vas, w/o. Mr. Rock Andrade major, married, aged 36 years, housewife, resident of C/o. Rice and Flour Mill, Ward No.2, H. No. 308, Ambaji, Margao, Goa. 36. Mr. Rock Andrade major, married, aged 40 years, Business, resident of C/o. Rice and Flour Mill, Ward No.2, H. No. 308, Ambaji, Margao, Goa. 37. Mrs. Gracy Goes e Vas, wife of Xavier Vas, major, married, aged 39 years, housewife, resident of H. No. 141, Abade Faria Road, Margao, Goa. …... Respondents Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 21 st September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri S. S. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri V. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. -9- 2. By the above Appeal, the Appellants are challenging the Order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, whereby an application for temporary injunction filed by the Respondents in Civil Suit no. 8 of 2008 was allowed and the Appellants were restrained, inter alia, from interfering with the suit property or undertaking any construction therein till the disposal of this suit. 3. Shri Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has essentially assailed the impugned Order on the ground that the Appellants are in possession of the suit portion of the property surveyed under chalta no. 169, P.T. Sheet no. 207 of Margao City. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the learned Judge has failed to address itself to the evidence adduced by the Appellants which conclusively establishes that the Appellants are in possession of the suit portion of the property. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has relied upon the Cadastral Plan which has not been promulgated and as such the inferences drawn on the basis of such plan cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously appreciated the land registration document in respect of the property of the Appellants whilst passing the impugned Order and, as such, has erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit portion of the property belongs to the Respondents. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in the suit portion of the property surveyed under chalta no. 169, there are three coconut trees besides some fruit bearing trees and the Appellants would be deprived of the enjoyment of such trees in case the impugned Order is allowed to stand and the Respondents would have a free hand to change the nature of the property and create third party right which -10- would be detrimental to the interest of the Appellants. The learned Counsel further submitted that the suit portion of the property is in ownership and possession of the Appellants and, as such, the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Valmiki Menezes,the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has supported the impugned Judgment. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the suit portion of the property is part and parcel of the property belonging to the Respondents and the same stood in the City Survey in the name of their Predecessor in title and, as such, the learned Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the suit portion of the property belongs to the Respondents. The learned Counsel has further taken me through the land registration document of the Respondents and pointed out that as per the said document, the northern boundary of the property is the property of the Appellants which conclusively establishes that the finding of the learned Judge are in accordance with the title documents of the parties. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Order and pointed out that the claim of the Appellants is essentially on the basis of an Order obtained from the Revenue Authorities which disannexed the suit portion of the property without making the Respondent as parties which has been duly considered whilst passing the impugned Order. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellants have failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their claim of possession and, as such, the question of interfering in such discretionary Orders passed by the learned Judge would not arise. As far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Respondents may create third party rights or change the nature of the property, the -11- learned Counsel states that he would abide with any terms put by this Court whilst deciding the above Appeal. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the learned Judge has scrutinised every piece of evidence adduced by both the parties and has come to the conclusion that, prima facie, the Respondents have established their claim of title and possession of the suit portion and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the Respondents. The learned Judge has further found that the apprehension of the Respondents that the Appellants may put up any construction in the suit portion of the property was well found on the basis that an approval was sought by the Appellants to develop their remaining portion of the property. The learned Judge has further found prima facie on the basis of the material on record, that the Respondents were in possession of the suit portion of the property and that the Appellants have failed to establish that they were in possession of any portion of the suit property. On perusal of the impugned Order, I find that the said Order is a well reasoned order after considering all aspects of the matter. At Paras 18 and 19 of the impugned Order, the learned Judge has scrutinized the title documents of both the parties and has come to a prima facie conclusion in favour of the Respondents. No infirmity was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in such findings. 6. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 1990 (Supp) S.C.C. 727 in the case of Wander Ltd. & anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd., has held at Para 14 thus: -12- “14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph1: (SCR 721) “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton2 ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.” -13- 7. Considering the said Judgment of the Apex Court, as the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants was unable to point out any specific piece of evidence which has not been considered by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order nor that any other documentary evidence has been misread by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order, I find that no interference is called for by the Court at this stage in the impugned Order. It is further made clear that all the findings arrived at by the learned Judge in the impugned Order are, prima facie, which would not influence the Trial Court whilst deciding the suit on merits. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the injunction also restrains the Appellants from interfering in the suit property, I find that in the interest of justice, the Respondents should be put to terms with regard to any dealings in the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The Respondents shall not create any third party right nor change the nature of the suit property nor cut the trees existing therein until the disposal of the suit filed by the Respondents. It is brought to my notice that the suit has already reached at an advanced stage and the evidence of the defendants is in progress. Shri Kakodkar, the learned Counsel has prayed that the suit may be expedited. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the evidence of the defendants is in progress, I find it appropriate that the learned Judge be directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 31.01.2012. 8. In view of the above, subject to the terms stipulated herein above, I find that no case is made out for any interference in the impugned Order. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. The learned Judge is directed to dispose of the Civil -14- Suit no. 8/2008 as expeditiously as possibly in any event preferably on or before 31.01.2012. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*