Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Comunidade of Poinguinim, filed a suit for injunction against the respondent, M/s Diksha Holdings Limited, alleging interference with suit property bearing Survey No.191/0 of Village Poinguinim. The respondent claimed to have purchased the property from the family of Wadiyars via a Deed of Sale dated 22/12/1994, which described the property as part of the property registered in the Land Registration Office under No.4181 and forming part of Survey No.191/0. The appellant contended that the property inscribed under Matriz No.982 (belonging to the appellant) does not form part of the property registered under No.4181, and that the respondent failed to disclose the matriz number of the specific portion purchased. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Lower Appellate Court allowed the respondent's appeal. The appellant then filed a Second Appeal, which was admitted on two substantial questions of law: whether the Appellate Court misconstrued the document of description of property registered under No.4181, and whether it was right in holding that the suit property is part of that property when the boundaries were same. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the Lower Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Land Registration - Boundaries - The court considered whether the Lower Appellate Court misconstrued the land registration document No.4181 to hold that the suit property (Survey No.191/0) is part thereof. The appellant argued that the property inscribed under Matriz No.982 does not form part of the property registered under No.4181. The court found no misconstruction and upheld the concurrent findings of fact. (Paras 2-4)
B) Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The court examined whether the appeal raised substantial questions of law. It held that the findings of fact by the Lower Appellate Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 2, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Lower Appellate Court misconstrued the document of description of property registered under No.4181 to hold that the suit property is situated therein, and whether it was right in holding that the property surveyed under No.191/0 is part of the property described in the Land Registration Office under No.4181 when the boundaries were same.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of land registration documents
- boundaries of property
- substantial question of law
- second appeal jurisdiction
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (04) 115
Second Appeal No. 60 of 2008
Shri Sudesh M. S. Usgaonkar (for appellant), Shri J.E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Shri V. Korgaonkar (for respondent)
M/s Diksha Holdings Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for injunction simpliciter
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought injunction against respondent for alleged interference with suit property
Filing Reason
Alleged interference by respondent with suit property bearing Survey No.191/0
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed the suit; Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondent
Issues
Whether the Lower Appellate Court misconstrued the document of description of property registered under No.4181 to hold that the suit property is situated therein?
Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the property surveyed under No.191/0 is a part of the property described in the Land Registration Office under No.4181 when the boundaries were same?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the property inscribed under Matriz No.982 does not form part of the property registered under No.4181, and that the respondent did not disclose the matriz number of the specific portion purchased.
Respondent argued that the property purchased by them is part of the property registered under No.4181 and forming part of Survey No.191/0, as per the Deed of Sale dated 22/12/1994.
Ratio Decidendi
The Lower Appellate Court correctly appreciated the evidence and did not misconstrue the land registration document. The findings of fact do not give rise to any substantial question of law.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 24th June, 2009, on the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether the Appellate Court misconstrued the document of description of property registered under No.4181 to hold that the suit property is situated therein ? (2) Whether the Appellate Court was right in holding that the property surveyed under No.191/0 (suit property) is a part of the property described in the Land Registration Office under No.4181 when the northern, southern and western boundaries of both the properties were same and the respondent did not disclose under which survey numbers the remaining property Galgibaga was surveyed ?
Procedural History
The appellant filed a suit for injunction in the Trial Court, which was dismissed. The respondent appealed to the Lower Appellate Court, which allowed the appeal. The appellant then filed a Second Appeal in the High Court, which was admitted on 24th June 2009 on two substantial questions of law. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 18th April 2015.
