IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1 OF 2009 CARMELINA FERNANDES D'SOUZA AND 4 ORS., ... Appellants Versus THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF ANJUNA, CAISUA THROUGH SARPANCH / SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes,Advocate for the appellants. Shri N. N. Sardessai,Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 24th April, 2009 P.C. The appellants have challenged the interim order dated 18.11.2008 in the suit filed by the appellants claiming injunction restraining the defendants from constructing upon the suit property or interfering in the suit property or changing the nature of the suit property. The suit property is stated to be an open land. There is no structure thereon. The appellants' claim is based upon the extract of registration of the property issued by the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records, Goa prior to liberation of Goa. It shows the name of the appellants' predecessor-in-title as the land owner. The said person is shown to be "away in unknown place". The land is shown as "uncultivated though productive." The records further show that those records were not finalised as per the law then existing in force. The name of the appellants' predecessor-in-title is not shown in the new survey records. It is based upon the survey record alone that the appellants have sued for injunction. They have not shown their title. 2. The respondents have shown their title under the Deed of Gift dated 15.4.1991 between the Administrative Committee of the Communidade of Anjuna and the Village Panchayat of Anjuna under which the suit land as also another large portion of the land under Survey No.407/1 admeasuring 31600 square metres was gifted. Though the defendants have not shown how the Gift or had title to the property gifted, the defendants have shown the compound wall put up on the plot of land gifted to the defendants as also a plaque showing the foundation stone for a stadium being laid. The foundation stone was laid on 12.11.2003. There are photographs of two plaques being produced. The photographs also show the compound wall having been constructed. The construction appears to be rather old. The part of the compound wall is breached and damaged. After the injunction is refused by the Trial Court, construction of certain community hall is put up. The photographs of the construction also show the compound wall behind the construction. The balance of convenience is, therefore, shown to be against the appellants. The order does not require interference. It would be for the appellants to show their title and claim consequential reliefs in the suit. The appeal is dismissed. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA