Further, the defendants were directed to pay damages caused to the original plaintiff by depriving her of the income companyresponding to her 1/3rd portion.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the matter went for trial and both the parties adduced evidence.
Presently the legal representatives of the original plaintiff are before us as appellants.
The case of the plaintiff was sought to be companytested by the defendant No.1 inter alia companytending that the claim of the plaintiff is false and ownership and possession of the suit schedule property stands transferred in favour of the defendant No.1 with effect from 26.4.1935 and he had acquired right by way of prescription as it has been enjoyed for 10 years, pursuant to the registration of the suit schedule property in his name.
30 of 1986 was filed by the defendants before the learned single Judge of the High Court by urging certain substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for short the CPC .
237 of 1981 before the District Court at Margao and the same was disposed of by judgment dated 16.12.1985 by recording reasons.
16413 in so far as it companyered the 1/3rd part of the plaintiff.
The original plaintiff, Inacinha Fernandes filed Civil Suit No.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the right of subrogation in favour of the father of the first defendant should have been granted by the defendant No.2 Tereza only in respect of 1/3rd share and number in relation to the entire property.
In this judgment for the sake of companyvenience the rank of the parties is described according to their position before the trial companyrt.
The relevant brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal companytentions with a view to examine and find out as to whether the impugned judgment of the High Court of Bombay warrants interference by this Court in this appeal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
30 of 1986 raising various questions of law and grounds in support of the same.
On appreciation of evidence on record the trial companyrt decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 29.4.1978.
14091 of 1948 on 1.1.1948 before the trial companyrt for declaration that she is the lawful owner in possession of 1/3rd of the property bearing land registration No.16413 and companysequential relief for cancellation of registration in favour of the defendants respondents in respect of such 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and to register the same in the name of the plaintiff.
Division at Quepem hereinafter referred to as the trial companyrt in Civil Suit No.14091 of 1948.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment Second Appeal No.
The defendant No.2 also denied the case of the plaintiff and claimed to be in possession pursuant to companyveyance thereof by the defendant No.1.
Therefore, the case of the defendants was accepted by the High Court stating that the pleading of K.V.P. Shastri in relation to the denial of ownership of the plaintiff is more relevant and material rather than that of Tereza.
The appellants are the legal representatives of the plaintiff and the respondents are the legal representatives of the defendants.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit holding it to be tenable and directed the defendants to acknowledge that the plaintiff along with her children is the lawful owner in possession of 1/3rd share of the suit schedule property and to release that 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff, by declaring to be null and void the inscription done in the Land Registration Office in respect to the said property which is described under No.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendants preferred Civil Appeal No.
Further case of the plaintiff is that on account of a debt of Rs.198/ to one Naraina Panduronga Porobo, the property was attached and thereafter the liability was paid by way of subrogation of rights in favour of the father of the first defendant, V.P. Shastri who bought this property which was sold in public auction on 26th April, 1935 and thereafter granted aforementioned property in favour of the husband of Tereza, namely, Tomas Fernandes vide perpetual lease.
The suit was instituted by the original plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr.
Gopala Gowda, J. This civil appeal is filed by the appellants as they are aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay at Goa passed on 14.9.1998 by the learned single Judge in Second Appeal No.
