Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Second Appeal filed by the appellants (original plaintiffs) against the judgment of the First Appellate Court which reversed the trial court's decree in their favor. The dispute pertains to Lote No. XXXIII in Sancoale, Goa. The appellants claimed that the suit property was part of a larger property owned by late Joaquim Gomes and that they had acquired title by adverse possession. The respondents, M/s. Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. and Communidade of Sancoale, contested the claim. The trial court had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the First Appellate Court reversed that decision. The Second Appeal was admitted on five substantial questions of law. The High Court examined each question. On the first question, the Court found that the plaint did not contain a specific plea that Lote No. XXXIII was within the pucca laterite stone wall, and the First Appellate Court's finding was not perverse. On the second question, the Court held that the First Appellate Court correctly appreciated the evidence regarding title, and the finding was not contrary to the Code of Communidades or Transfer of Property Act. On the third question, the Court found that the officers executing the transfer documents had the requisite authority. On the fourth question, the Court held that the adverse inference for non-examination of defendant no. 2 was discretionary and the First Appellate Court rightly reversed the trial court's finding. On the fifth question, the Court upheld the First Appellate Court's finding on the certificates issued by the Communidade. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, finding no merit in any of the substantial questions of law.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Specific Plea - The court considered whether the finding that there was no specific plea that Lote No. XXXIII was within the pucca laterite stone wall erected by late Joaquim Gomes was perverse. Held that the substance of the plaint, particularly para 12, did not contain a specific plea, and the finding was not perverse (Paras 2-5). B) Property Law - Title - Code of Communidades and Transfer of Property Act - The court examined whether the finding that defendant no. 1 had title to the suit property was arrived at in disregard of the Code of Communidades and Transfer of Property Act. Held that the First Appellate Court correctly appreciated the evidence and the title documents, and the finding was not perverse (Paras 6-10). C) Property Law - Transfer of Property - Authority of Officers - The court considered whether defendant no. 1 could step into the shoes of the original owner in the absence of authority in the officers executing transfer documents. Held that the transfer documents were validly executed and the officers had the requisite authority (Paras 11-15). D) Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Non-examination of Witness - The court examined whether the First Appellate Court was right in reversing the trial court's finding that an adverse inference was available against defendant no. 2 for its non-examination. Held that the adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is discretionary and the First Appellate Court correctly exercised its discretion (Paras 16-20). E) Property Law - Certificates by Communidade - The court considered whether the finding of the First Appellate Court reversing the trial court's finding on certificates issued by the Communidade was correct. Held that the certificates were properly considered and the finding was not perverse (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the findings of the First Appellate Court on the issues of specific plea regarding Lote No. XXXIII, title of defendant no. 1, authority of officers executing transfer documents, adverse inference for non-examination of defendant no. 2, and certificates issued by Communidade are perverse or contrary to law.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the First Appellate Court is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and proved
- Plea of title must be established by clear evidence
- Code of Communidades provisions govern transfer of communidade property
- Adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act is discretionary
