IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2008 SHRI. VITHOBA BABUSSO ADEL ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. GOKULDAS BABUSSO ADEL ... Respondent Mr. N. Vaze, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 2nd January, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. N. Vaze, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a plaintiff in R.C.S. No.33/04/A before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem. The defendant is the plaintiff's brother. The plaintiff having filed a suit and along with it an application for temporary injunction, the said application came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, by his Order dated 13-4-2005 and which came to be affirmed by Order dated 27-11-2007 by the learned District Judge-II, Margao. It appears that in the suit property surveyed under No.129/4 there is a house which is partly occupied by the plaintiff and partly by the defendant. In form Nos.I and XIV the plaintiff's father was shown as a tenant in respect of the property surveyed under No.129/4 and it appears that subsequently by Deed dated 27-5-1996, to which the defendant was not a party, the plaintiff has purchased 1,300 sq. meters of the said property, in which the house is situated. As per the plaintiff, the said house existing in survey No.129/4 is the mundkarial house of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion, with reference to the relevant provisions of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 that the said Sale Deed could not have conveyed exclusive title in favour of the plaintiff when the defendant was not a party to it and the past records showed that it was the plaintiff and defendant's father who was a tenant in respect of the said property, a part of which has now been purchased by the plaintiff by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 27-5-1996. Both the Courts below have also come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had produced no evidence to show that the defendant had made any attempt to interfere with the portion of the house occupied by the plaintiff or part of the property which was being enjoyed by him. In fact, on behalf of the defendant it was made clear before the first appellate Court that the defendant had interest to enjoy two jack fruit trees, coconut trees and a coconut sapling which are located on the right hand side and two rooms on the northern side of the house which were in his possession. Considering the facts of the case, the prima facie findings arrived at by both the Courts below could not be faulted. This is not a fit case for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is therefore hereby dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.