eencemeé, the same is questioned before this Court am’ the matter was
remanded for fresh eonsideratéen to the Land Tribunai and the same
pending adjueiieatien. When the matter stood at that stage, ”
pmitttiff sold 1 acre 53 eents in f3″‘e’0i11′ of second piaiz1ti1’if’._ttnder.:e’
registered sate deed dated 17.01.1981. The Qiiénal.qti:1er,..s”.
No. 1635198§ against the defendants forg:’ei1t.._Mcf peimanentt “§;1jii:ietion
zestraining them from interferfltg_ with pesseeeionj and
enjoyment of the plain: schedule S-:2_(_if the same
measuring in all 3 aeresefi-3V_h appearanee
before the Trial Cottgfit. ifsttet eiiét centending that
their lands are simated. 91}. Vecheduie preperty and
that there is aiteaei nf p£aintifi°s and defendants
which they are is further contended that Stat.
Rita Norenita. flied at §z’1itV_:.91g2-tithtget the res; ptamtifim as. No. 125.2197: fer
_of i;qju1tetie£t”‘a:id in the said suit the eompetent civii
Cotii>t_’f:eiaciT_ti1at”tt1e’ is not in possession. of any portion ef suit
” fimase ..€iefen<ia;1ts further eentend that by suppressing the
feetsthe have filed the present suit and en these gonads
tflieelaen Of piaintiffs. It is further eentended that there is an
_3gg«*eert1he4t1t £ietvs«*ee12 the defendants and 5212:. Rita Nerenha as per 52.31.13,?
' agreeififi to repair the read in question by sharing the eests an else to use
d\./\/"
the mad by hem the parties. 01: the basis of pieadings, the Txiai Cam
framed the foilcewixxg issaes and additional issufi far its eonsidaraticm.
i. Whether plainiiffs prove that they are in iawfui po$s.¢§$it1i’4}:4″V;. ”
of the zflaint A scheduie property’?
Wizether the piaintifis grave the’ »iit£i21’«fa1jei1;;e ,5»§ n;’._:.:ge
defendant as averted in gara III (5) lfif ‘~ , «. V’ ”
iii. Whether defendant proves’ ‘»2=_.;a:isteii:,a:__ r;>’f._fo’a;d¥V§i;=::1i5}’
SING. 16,538 staninggom ti1,e—E\FVV§iti§xn§i£~».I%.Iigl1.§véryvandzéa to
the iand of defendant” years’?
iv. Further dgfaxzcigtni and his
predagesfifiys ~b4é::.e*-x_§€ as of right},
v:’1§n:j§t}aé$”‘1%<c;'faeted his right to use the said
fééié :"r3i'€Si.'»'3'.i.'{'iV}¥C:£~'LA)V'f1L.?:_' " '=– N V .
V'. E' ' '+Vh€{h'<%}i' five; vpa.r'ties.'VaréTe%.ntit£ed to the reiiefs claimed in the
Sfiig? A. " …… ..
' L__ *éi.__. 2 V = decree'? '_ : 'jg: an a2,g;.g99';,
L “‘e%g%§i£:tl1er the cozinter aiaizn £3 baxreé by Law ef
. _ _ H Limitation?
74.. Before the Tzial Ceurt {ha piaintifis examined twe witnesses as
P.W.2 and got marked EX.P.1 to Ex.P.28. Thfi defendants
__}\-/
séaamined twe wimesses; as IlW.l and If},W.2 and got marked Ex.B.1 to
Ex:.D.21. The Trial Court en apgzreciaticm 0f the pleadings, era! and
éeaumentary evidence passeé the imguged jadgnmt dismissing the s;zit.._
of plaintiffs. The plamtifis being aggrieved by the judgnent of the.’
Caurt fiifid an apyeai in RA. ‘£0. 10.2006 and the same Cathie
ciismissad and confirmed the judgmaent of tha .7frial..
secenci appeai.
5. Thong the matter is Eisted for éénjission, tIi::;_13z£f£§:f is £311″:
merixs by consent cf the learned 2:gci.vccate§V.r.1r{t:<:tli' -.t_.1_1c sifiiré 'and
the entire appeai gapers. V V. H a
6. It is net in disgwgztgj cf entire
survey N0. 16533 dispute that Smt,
Rita Norcnha filgdi V’La:;’2:§:VdvV”I’:ibunal for gem: of
aceugsancy figéjts _gf?€»£2’1$ jam; gfgwsurvey Na. 16533. Farther
it is not in disfiumtfzat gamed 01211:; 99 cents in favour
of Smt. Rita-Norenhgi afid rejéctéé claim £0 tha remaining extent. This
‘c<3ii1"r:-get asiéia T3313 owler of L3fid"Tzibw:a1 in S0 far as it reiates E0 rejectian
ef"c£§ii1; '_07f –S:t::£, 1?'fita_ and rernanded the matter ta the Land
_ ,__ jf;ibuna'i np1§é i'i?geA '::S3Z11€ is pending adjudication. W§1:'~::n the matter
. _-'§§$C'}€}l._?I at that st;:;g'¢, the first pkzintific said a parting of the ssheduie property
': " {}f_second piaiatifi" under 3, regstered Saba deed dated 17.01 ' 1931.
$"-…/
<:jA'{'\-F
Tlmse admitted facts an record clearly establishes the fact that the claim af
Smt. Rita Norenha far gant of eccugancy rights in respect of the entire
suave}: No. 16938 including the plaint schedule pmperty is the subjergt»
matter before the Land Trfibunal. in the circumstances, wltether tile"
made by the first glaintiff in faveur cf second plaintiff is oylrllji
depends on the outcome of the result in the ma.-tttet'~-panditxg lléffifé»
Land Tribunal. It is ant specifiad as to what are tlie;ba:{t§id.irie:é'@ft1l A
granted in favour cf Smt. Rita Neronlm, 'x}:r.l}'3t~..is tl1eA'l:r3;111s1a;r$/.ifi
of the lands sold its second plaintiff under ti1ra.Véa£e_ tléigd ofltlie. V§f§arJ§981
and what are the boundarias (if laszrllt rataainefi' :§;jk"v–f';;;*st";:,rlai12tifl°. In the
absenca af these details, bath the C0urtsj:'lxela:§,r~».1;a§'é'rejected the
claim of glalntiffs faszjgiant 'pmm§inet},t 'V V'
?. Noronha alaiming to
be in gossessiolliaf éntlre' in Slirvey No. 165313 filed a suit
in 0.3. l\?0.A.125{19'?4l"azlé zzmsagile tc Ere decreed holding that Smt.
;)o$A.§essitltiVt3'f'é:titire survey No. 16.538 and first glaintifif
is ital: lpGsséss_l6n"'c£any portion of it. By suppressing this fact the
' ll vplairltiffs ltfiaiie suit before the Trial Court. Further during the
ol"..tl§e;_ suit a Coax: Comrnissitmer was appointed and he
'1."'«st;§'m:;itt:§dll«l..;*e§ort and sketch specifying existence of road between the
A' defendants and lands in survey Ne. 16533. Agaln by
'V ' A sfiptpétéfising the existence of the mad tha plaintifis have filed the suit. The
draw