Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from Regular Civil Suit No.30 of 1993 filed before the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Canacona, Goa, by the original plaintiffs, who are the appellants in the second appeal, against the original defendants, now respondents. The suit sought a declaration that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit property described as bearing Survey Nos.151(1), 151(2) and 151(3), situated at Shirewada, Nagarcem, Canacona, Goa, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or trespassing upon the property. The trial court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 30.10.2003. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision by judgment and decree dated 19.10.2004, which led to the filing of the present second appeal. The second appeal was admitted on 29.09.2005 on a substantial question of law. The substantial question of law was whether the First Appellate Court was right in ignoring the inscription of title in favour of the appellants in the year 1956, which was based on acquisition of title in the year 1947, in as much as Article 953 of the Portuguese Civil Code read with Article 8 of Decree No.42.565 creates a presumption of possession in favour of a person in whose favour the entry was made and that the same belongs to the person in whose name the entry is found registered. The appellants, through their counsel, argued that the plaintiffs had produced title documents and survey records upon which the trial court had correctly decreed the suit. They contended that oral evidence and land registration records, including inscription and description documents, supported their claim of title and possession. They submitted that the first appellate court had ignored or grossly misconstrued the documentary evidence and statutory provisions, and that matriz documents or entries in the un-promulgated Survey Form No.III were irrelevant for determining title. The appellants also pointed out that the impugned judgment and decree had been stayed by the High Court subject to the appellants depositing certain amounts monthly, and that they had regularly made such deposits. The respondents, through their senior counsel, supported the reasoning of the first appellate court. They submitted that there was no dispute about ownership and possession of part of the suit property surveyed under No.151(1), but that the first appellate court had correctly dismissed the suit regarding properties surveyed under Nos.151(2) and 151(3). They argued that the correlation between the title documents or land registration documents and these two survey numbers was not established, and that the rights of the vendors from whom the appellants claimed to have acquired title were never clearly established. The provided judgment text ends during the respondents' submissions, and the final decision of the High Court is not included in the extract. Therefore, the outcome of the second appeal and the operative directions remain unavailable from the supplied material.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Land Registration and Title - Presumption of Possession - Portuguese Civil Code, Article 953; Decree No.42.565, Article 8 - The substantial question of law concerned whether the 1956 inscription of title based on 1947 acquisition created presumption of possession and ownership in favour of the entry holder; appellants relied on Article 953 of the Portuguese Civil Code and Article 8 of Decree No.42.565 to contend that statutory presumption of ownership and possession arose from land registration records; respondents disputed this for survey numbers 151(2) and 151(3) contending correlation not established; the court heard arguments but the final holding is not available in the provided text (Paras 4-5, 7). B) Evidence - Survey Records and Matriz Documents - Relevance for Title Determination - Portuguese Civil Code, Article 953; Decree No.42.565, Article 8 - Appellants submitted that matriz documents or entries in un-promulgated Survey Form No.III are irrelevant for determining title and that survey documents were misread by the First Appellate Court; respondents argued that the correlation between title documents and the two disputed survey numbers was not established and rights of vendors were unclear; these evidentiary disputes formed part of the appeal (Paras 5, 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court was right in ignoring the inscription of title in favour of the appellants in the year 1956 based on acquisition of title in the year 1947, in as much as Article 953 of the Civil Code read with Article 8 of Decree No.42.565 creates presumption of possession in favour of a person in whose favour the entry was made and that the same belongs to the person in whose name the entry is found registered?
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided text; the final decision of the High Court is not included in the extract.
Law Points
- Statutory presumption of ownership and possession may arise from land registration records under Article 953 of Portuguese Civil Code read with Article 8 of Decree No.42.565
- inscription of title in favour of person creates presumption that property belongs to person in whose name entry is registered
- title documents and survey records are relevant to establish ownership and possession
- matriz documents or entries in un-promulgated Survey Form No.III are irrelevant for determining title
- correlation between title documents and survey numbers must be established for decree of declaration of ownership
