1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO.95/2009 1. Mr. Pedro Fernandes (Since deceased represented By his legal heirs) 1a. Mr. Tony Pascoal Fernandes, Aged 40 years; & his wife 1b. Mrs. Sharmila Fortes, Aged 37 years; Appellant numbers 1a and 1b are represented by their duly constituted Attorney Mr. Joe Fernandes (Appellant No.4 herein) 2. Mrs. Maria Fernandes, Aged 74 years; 3. Mr. Caitan Fernandes, Aged 43 years; and his wife 3a. Mrs. Liberate Fernandes, Aged 40 years; 4. Mr. Joe Fernandes Aged 39 years; and his wife 4a. Mrs. Carmelina Fernandes, Aged 32 years 5. Mr. Eric Fernandes, Aged 41 years; and his wife 5a. Mrs. Sharmila Maria Fernandes, Aged 39 years 6. Mr. Santan Fernandes, Aged 38 years, All resident of Pafs Cold Storage, Opposite to Hotel Vasco, Vaddem, Vasco-de-Gama, Goa .. Appellants. Versus 2 1. Shri Florencio Jacinto Dias, (Since deceased and represented hereby his legal heirs) 1a. Miss Christine Dias; 1b. Mr. Luis Dias; 1c. Miss Fatima Dias; 1d. Mr. Wilfred Dias; 2. Mrs. Angelina Colaco, All residents of Chandrapares, Near Pai Hospital, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa .. Respondents Mr. G. Shirodkar, Senior Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G. Vijaychandran, Advocate for respondent nos.1(a),(b), (c),(d) and 2. Coram :- A. P. Lavande, J. Reserved on : - 19 th November, 2010 Pronounced on :- 24 th November, 2010. ORDER : This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th July, 2009 passed by the District Judge-II, South Goa in Regular Civil Appeal no.153/2008 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Vasco-da-Gama in Regular Civil Suit no.47/1999/D. 3 2. The respondents filed the above suit against the appellants seeking injunction against the defendants from interfering / encroaching in the suit area as shown in the sketch annexed to the plaint. The suit was contested by the defendants. Upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property and consequently decreed the suit. The Lower Appellate Court in appeal preferred by the defendants upheld the decree. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the appellants/ defendants assailed both the decrees on the following grounds : (i) The plaintiffs have not their title to the suit property and as such, the decree passed by both the Courts are unsustainable in law. (ii) The suit property belonged to Communidade and as such, the respondents had no locus to file the suit against the appellants. (iii) The plaintiffs had not identified the portion of the suit property in respect of which relief was sought by annexing a sketch and thereby Order VII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. was not complied with. 4 3. Per contra, Mr. Vijaychandran, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents supported the impugned decrees and submitted that the respondents have title as well as possession to the suit property and as such, there is no perversity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. According to learned Counsel, the appellants have absolutely no right in respect of the suit property and, therefore, the decrees passed by both the Courts below do not warrant any interference. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the two decrees passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below had relied upon the documents which clearly prove the title of the plaintiffs to the suit property. In so far as non-compliance of Order VII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. is concerned, perusal of the plaint discloses that the plaintiffs had annexed the sketch showing the portion of the suit property in respect of which the relief was sought. Moreover, the said point does not appear to have been either urged or argued before the Lower Appellate Court. In any case, the judgment dated 21st September, 2001 of Inspector of Surveys and Land Records,City Survey,Vasco-da-Gama and 5 Corrigendum thereto dated 25th June 2002 clearly establish that the claim of the respondents in respect of the suit property has been admitted. As such, their possession in respect of the suit property cannot be disputed. In any case, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is summarily rejected. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA