Case Note & Summary
The appellants, plaintiffs in the original suit, filed First Appeal No. 282 of 2007 before the Bombay High Court at Goa against the judgment dated 25-7-2007 of the learned District Judge, Panaji, dismissing their suit for declaration and consequential relief. The plaintiffs claimed that a large property known as 'VITES' with land registration No. 5386 and cadastral survey No. 1046, originally belonging to Joaquim Thomas Xavier de Rego and others, was purchased by Domingos Caetano de Souza, father of plaintiff No. 1, more than 70 years ago. Although no sale deed was executed, the plaintiffs alleged that Domingos Caetano de Souza took exclusive possession and remained in continuous, public possession as owner, planting trees and appropriating produce. After his death, plaintiff No. 1 continued possession. The property was bounded on the north by government land. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and consequential relief. The defendant, the Government of Goa, contested the claim. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to the appeal. The legal issues were whether the plaintiffs had acquired title by adverse possession and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The appellants argued that their long possession for over 70 years established title by adverse possession. The respondent contended that the property was government land and the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession. The High Court, per Justice N. A. Britto, held that the burden of proving adverse possession lies on the claimant, and the plaintiffs did not adduce sufficient evidence to show that their possession was hostile, open, and continuous for the statutory period of 12 years. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not produce any documentary evidence of title or possession, and the mere fact of long possession without animus possidendi does not confer title. The court also observed that the property was adjacent to government land and the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - Section 27, Limitation Act, 1963 - Plaintiffs claimed ownership by adverse possession over government land for over 70 years - Held that the burden to prove possession adverse to the true owner lies on the claimant, and mere long possession without animus possidendi is insufficient - Plaintiffs failed to prove that their possession was hostile, open, and continuous for the statutory period of 12 years (Paras 4-10). B) Land Law - Government Land - Presumption of Ownership - Suit for Declaration - Plaintiffs sought declaration of ownership over property claimed to be government land - Held that government land is presumed to belong to the State unless proven otherwise - Plaintiffs did not produce any documentary evidence of title or adverse possession - Suit dismissed as plaintiffs failed to establish their claim (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession over the suit property which was government land, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the learned District Judge, Panaji, dated 25-7-2007, dismissing the suit, is affirmed.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- burden of proof
- government land
- limitation
- declaration of ownership
