Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Esso Raghu Khandolkar and Vatsala E. Khandolkar, were the plaintiffs in a suit filed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda, seeking a declaration of leasehold rights over 21 sq. mts. of land in Survey No. 97/2 of Village Khandola, Ponda Taluka, Goa, along with possession of a suit structure (a gada for selling beedies, cigarettes, etc.) and permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that their father had obtained an oral lease from the father of defendant no.6 (the owner) on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-, and they had constructed the suit structure with the lessor's consent, running the gada for over 20 years. In February 1987, the defendants (relatives) forcibly occupied the structure after being allowed to store articles temporarily. The trial court decreed the suit, but the Additional District Judge, Panaji, allowed the defendants' appeal and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs then filed the present second appeal. The High Court of Bombay at Goa, presided by Justice P.V. Kakade, heard the appeal. The court found that the lower appellate court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence, including the plaintiffs' long possession and the oral lease, and had reversed the trial court's decree without sufficient justification. The High Court held that the appellate court's findings were perverse and not based on the evidence on record. Consequently, the second appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Additional District Judge was set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored. The court directed the defendants to hand over possession of the suit structure to the plaintiffs and restrained them from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. The plaintiffs were also awarded costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with Findings of Fact - The High Court in second appeal can interfere if the lower appellate court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence - The appellate court failed to consider material evidence regarding the plaintiffs' long possession and oral lease - Held that the judgment of the appellate court was liable to be set aside (Paras 2-10). B) Property Law - Lease - Oral Lease - Validity - An oral lease for a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- created by the father of defendant no.6 in favour of the father of plaintiff no.1 was established through consistent evidence of possession for over 20 years - The suit structure and gada were erected with consent of the lessor - Held that the plaintiffs had proved their leasehold rights (Paras 3-8). C) Evidence - Possession - Presumption - Long and uninterrupted possession for more than 20 years raises a presumption of title or leasehold rights - The plaintiffs' possession of the suit structure and gada was supported by oral and documentary evidence - The appellate court erred in ignoring this evidence (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional District Judge was justified in reversing the trial court's decree without properly appreciating the evidence on record, particularly regarding the plaintiffs' leasehold rights and possession of the suit structure.
Final Decision
Second appeal allowed. Judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Panaji dated 30/04/2003 set aside. Judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda dated 30/04/1999 restored. Respondents directed to hand over possession of suit structure to appellants and restrained from interfering with appellants' possession. Appellants entitled to costs.
Law Points
- Leasehold rights
- oral lease
- possession
- burden of proof
- interference with findings of fact
- second appeal jurisdiction
