Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute, Upholds Trial Court's Decree of Declaration and Injunction Based on Adverse Possession. Plaintiff's long possession and payment of taxes established ownership by adverse possession over suit mill.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Prosecution
  • 33
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a dispute over a mill with an area of 134 sq. metres. The plaintiff, Amaral Pereira, claimed that his grandmother, Maria Francisca Fernandes, took over the mill in 1933 in the name of Shaba Bojru Naik Bagat. After her death, the mill was transferred to her daughter Dumetilda Fernandes in 1970, then to her husband Raymond Carneiro, and finally to the plaintiff in 1973. The plaintiff alleged that he was in possession of the mill since 1973, paying taxes and running it as his own, thereby acquiring ownership by adverse possession. The defendant, Narendra Voikunt Raikar, denied the plaintiff's title, claiming that the mill and the property belonged to him and his co-sharers, and that the plaintiff's documents were manipulated. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring his title and granting a perpetual injunction, with a direction to the Collector to update survey records. The first appellate court confirmed this decision. The defendant then filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The High Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the plaintiff had established his title by adverse possession.

Headnote

A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Declaration of Title - Plaintiff claimed ownership of suit mill by adverse possession since 1973 - Defendant denied title and alleged manipulation of documents - Trial Court decreed suit, confirmed by First Appellate Court - Held that plaintiff's long possession, payment of taxes, and licence in his name established adverse possession (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title to the suit mill and land by adverse possession?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Second Appeal dismissed. Judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Margao dated 30/09/1997 confirming trial court's decree is upheld.

Law Points

  • Adverse possession
  • Declaration of title
  • Perpetual injunction
  • Burden of proof
  • Limitation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (12) 88

Second Appeal No. 101 of 2003

2006-12-07

P.V. Kakade, J.

Mr. Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar for Appellant; Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M. D'Souza for Respondent

Shri Narendra Voikunt Raikar

Shri Amaral Pereira

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction based on adverse possession.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought declaration of ownership of suit mill and permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with possession.

Filing Reason

Defendant obstructed plaintiff from carrying out construction and repairs on the mill.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court decreed suit on 30/09/1997; First Appellate Court dismissed appeal confirming trial court's judgment.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title to the suit mill and land by adverse possession?

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that he was in possession since 1973, paying taxes and running the mill, thus acquiring ownership by adverse possession. Defendant contended that the mill and property belonged to him and his co-sharers, and plaintiff's documents were manipulated.

Ratio Decidendi

The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding adverse possession are not perverse and do not warrant interference in second appeal.

Judgment Excerpts

The unsuccessful defendant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Margao dismissing his appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Civil Court dated 30/09/1997 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration and perpetual injunction as a consequential relief.

Procedural History

Trial Court decreed suit on 30/09/1997. First appeal dismissed by Additional District Judge, Margao. Second appeal filed before High Court of Bombay at Goa.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Limitation Act, 1963:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute, Upholds Trial Court's Decree of Declaration and Injunction Based on Adverse Possession. Plaintiff's long possession and payment of taxes established ownership by adverse possession over s...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Landlord-Tenant Dispute — Partnership Claim Fails for Lack of Registration. Relationship of landlord and tenant established by payment of rent and acceptance, not partnership.