Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Anastasio Gomes and Florina Gomes, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of a property known as 'AFORAMENTO SEM DENOMINACAO ESPECIAL' situated at Gogola ward, Margao City. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao, on 21.07.2008 in Regular Civil Suit No.131/2006/E, holding that the appellants failed to establish lawful ownership. The appellants appealed to the District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Regular Civil Appeal No.111/2008, which was dismissed on 02.01.2009. The appellants then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no substantial question of law and dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Ownership and Title - Burden of Proof - Appellants failed to prove they were lawful owners of suit property - Courts below concurrently held that appellants did not establish title - Held that no substantial question of law arises in second appeal (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants have established their lawful ownership of the suit property and whether the findings of the courts below are perverse or based on no evidence.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. No substantial question of law arises. Concurrent findings of courts below affirmed.
Law Points
- burden of proof
- ownership
- title
- possession
- second appeal
- substantial question of law
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (09) 84
Second Appeal No. 57 of 2009
Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Pai Kir, Advocate for the appellants; Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the respondents
Mr. Anastasio Gomes and Mrs. Florina Gomes alias Florinda Gomes
Mr. Bernado Gomes, Mrs. Carmelina Gomes, Mr. Rosario Gomes, Mr. Joao Baptista Gomes alias Joao Batista Gomes, Mrs. Bostina Libra Mascarenhas Gomes
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of ownership and possession of immovable property.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that appellants are owners in possession of the suit property.
Filing Reason
Appellants claimed ownership of suit property and sought declaration.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed suit on 21.07.2008; first appellate court dismissed appeal on 02.01.2009.
Issues
Whether the appellants have established their lawful ownership of the suit property.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that they are owners in possession; respondents opposed.
Ratio Decidendi
Appellants failed to prove lawful ownership of suit property; no substantial question of law in second appeal.
Judgment Excerpts
The above second appeal challenges the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in the suit filed by the appellants inter-alia for a declaration that the appellants are the owners in possession of the property...
Learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao, by judgment and decree dated 21.07.2008 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.131/2006/E dismissed the suit filed by the appellants.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants preferred an Appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.111/2008 before the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, which appeal came to be dismissed, by judgment dated 02.01.2009.
Procedural History
Appellants filed Regular Civil Suit No.131/2006/E before Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao, which was dismissed on 21.07.2008. Appellants appealed to District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.111/2008, which was dismissed on 02.01.2009. Appellants then filed Second Appeal No.57 of 2009 before High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was dismissed on 23.09.2011.
