Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment : heard shri m.b. da costa, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and shri s.r. rivonkar, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 5. 2. the above appeals challenge the common judgment passed by the learned reference court dated 21/03/2002 passed in land acquisition case nos.31/1991, 32/1991 and 33/1991. the parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned judgment. 3. briefly, the facts of the case are that the land was acquired for the purpose of road widening from bethora to nirankar in ponda taluka, having an area of 875 square metres from the property under survey no.234 (part), an area of 480 square metres from the property surveyed under no.235(part) and an area of 235 square metres from the property surveyed under no.240 (part) of the village of ponda. in view of the dispute between the parties a reference under section 30 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'the said act') referred to the learned district judge, came to be disposed of by the impugned judgment and award dated 21/03/2002. being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant has preferred the above appeal. 4. shri m.b. da costa, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that the property was originally registered in the land registration office under no.5667 and enrolled in taluka revenue office under matriz no.605 and is shown in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: heard shri a. d. bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. none for the respondents though served. 2. the above petition challenges an order passed by the learned civil judge senior division, mapusa, in regular civil suit no. 58/1999 dated 08.06.2007 whereby an application filed by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the suit as pendente lite transferee came to be rejected. 3. shri bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the law is well settled that the pendente lite transferee can be impleaded in the suit to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. the learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner himself has filed an application to be impleaded in the suit and any decree in the suit would affect the right of the petitioner in the suit property. the learned counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned judge has erroneously dismissed the application on a spacious ground that there are no pleadings to that effect in the plaint. the learned counsel as such submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. i have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and i have also gone through the records as well as the impugned order. in order to consider as to whether the petitioner is to be impleaded as a party to the suit, it would be appropriate to note the scope and the meaning of doctrine of lis pendens under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: heard shri valmiki menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and shri v. a. lawande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 6 to 9. 2. the above writ petition challenges an order passed by the courts below whereby the petitioner has been held guilty of disobeying the order of the court under order 39 rule 2-a of the civil procedure code and, inter alia, directed to remove the loose stones placed after an exparte order came to be granted in favour of the respondents by order dated 21.06.2003. 3. it is not in dispute that the respondents who are defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner, moved an application for temporary injunction on the ground that the access claimed by the respondents was being blocked by the petitioner by putting up a compound wall. after the exparte order dated 21.06.2003 came to be served on the petitioner on the same day, it is the case of the respondents that in blanket disobedience of the said exparte order, the petitioner chose to place five layers of stones over the suit access. the petitioner disputed the said contention and pointed out that such blockage was existing as on the date of the exparte order and, as such, according to the petitioner, even assuming some stones were stacked after the impugned order was served, does not amount to disobedience of the order as claimed by the respondents. learned civil judge, junior division, margao, after holding an inquiry and hearing the parties by order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
this is plaintiff's second appeal. 2. plaintiff had filed regular civil suit no. 17/1997/b for demarcation of southern boundary line of the suit property, by appointing head surveyor of the survey department, to do the same. the plaintiff had also sought permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing compound wall on the southern boundary of the suit property or encroaching upon the suit property. the original defendant died during pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. 3. plaintiff's case, in short, was as follows:- he is the owner in possession of the suit property known as borimollacodil moddi situated at borimol in quepem taluka, being bounded on the east and north by municipal road; on the west by the property of carlos mascarenhas, under survey no. 57/1 and on the south by the property bearing survey no. 56/1, which belongs to the defendants. the suit property bears survey no. 57/2. it was allotted to the plaintiff by way deed of gift and acceptance dated 01/04/1965. the southern boundary of the suit property is safeguarded by a loose rubble stone addo and there are ten well-grown trees planted by his ancestors existing on the said boundary, which are enjoyed by the plaintiff. on 21/04/1994, the defendants cut one jambul tree belonging to the plaintiff. the plaintiff had filed a case before deputy collector at quepem for demarcation of the southern boundary and the same was demarcated twice, but the said demarcation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard mr. j. e. coelho pereira, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents and ms. sapna mordekar, learned additional government advocate appearing for the respondents/appellants in the above appeals. 2. the parties shall be referred to in the manner as they are so described in the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2006. 3. both the above appeals challenge the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court dated 29.07.2006 in land acquisition case no. 42/1990 whereby a reference filed by the applicants was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of rs.230/- per square metre. 4. briefly the facts of the case are that pursuant to a notification dated 18.02.1982, land admeasuring 2502 square metres from the property surveyed under p.t. sheet no. 141 of chalta no.1 of panaji city situated at miramar came to be acquired for the construction of parks, recreational and other development of miramar area. after complying with the formalities under the land acquisition act, 1894 an award came to be passed under section 11 of the land acquisition act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as the said act? ) whereby a sum of rs.75/- per square metre was offered for the land acquired. being dissatisfied with the said amount, the applicants sought a reference under section 18 of the said act and claimed compensation for the land acquired at the rate of rs.1000/- per square metre. by the impugned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard mr. s. kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, mr. r. gawas, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 (a) 4(b)( i to vi) and mr. coelho pereira, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 and legal heirs of respondent nos. 6 and 7 ( i to v). 2. the above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 10.07.2007 passed in land acquisition case no. 120/2000 whereby a reference under section 30 of the land acquisition act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as the said act? ) was disposed of by directing the compensation awarded to be paid to the respondents herein. 3. briefly, the facts of the case are that land admeasuring 475 square metres was acquired by the government for the purpose of constructing a sump pump house in the village of cuncolim of salcete taluka bearing survey no. 435/1 of cuncolim village. the land acquisition officer passed an award under section 11 of the said act but however, the appellants as well as the respondents and some other parties put a claim to the compensation awarded and as such, the land acquisition officer made a reference under section 30 of the said act to the learned reference court. by judgment and award dated 10.07.2007, the learned reference court after recording of evidence has directed that the compensation awarded be paid to the respondents herein. 4. mr. s.s. kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out that according to the appellants they are .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment:- 1. heard mr. shivan desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, mr. c. a. coutinho, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and mr. a. f. diniz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. the above appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law by an order dated 02.12.2008. (i) whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2, is barred by limitation? (ii) whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2, is barred under the benami transaction act? 3. mr. desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants before adverting to his submissions on the aforesaid substantial questions of law submitted that there is an additional substantial question of law which also arises in the present appeal as to whether the respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs have established the essential terms of the agreement to be entitled for the specific performance of the contract in the context that there is variance between the pleadings and the evidence. 4. mr. coutinho and mr. diniz, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have opposed the said prayer of mr. desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. it is submitted by the learned counsel that the said substantial question of law does not at all arise in the present second appeal as in any event, it is essentially a question of fact which cannot be appreciated by this court in the present second appeal. 5. on hearing the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment : 1. heard. 2. rule. rule made returnable forthwith. heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. the grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by the petitioner seeking certified copies of the trust deed dated 29/01/1993 has been wrongly and illegally rejected by the public information officer i.e. the respondent no.3 and the order of the rejection has been upheld by the appellate authorities i.e. the respondent nos.1 and 2, without considering the settled principles of law. 4. it is seen from the first impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 (page 15 of the paper book) that the information has been rejected on the ground that the information is held by the lic in a fiduciary capacity and also on the ground that the information relates to personal information, having no connection whatsoever with any public activity or interest. 5. the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that lic indeed holds the information in a fiduciary relationship with the mrf limited, which has entered into a trust deed between the company and some of its employees, who have been shown as trustees and that on the date, on which the application under right to information was filed by the petitioner, as per the information received by the lic from the said company, the petitioner had ceased to be trustee. on the basis of the trust deed, the lic has only issued a group superannuation policy for the benefit of the employees of the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard shri sudesh usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, mr. shivan desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in second appeal nos. 25 and 28 to 31 of 2009 and shri r. g. ramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in second appeal no. 60 of 2010. 2. shri sudesh usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in support of the above appeal and the substantial questions of law framed by this court, has pointed out that before the learned lower appellate court, the appellants had produced the document of the land registration records pertaining to the property described under no. 6352 which, according to the appellants, corresponds to the suit property. learned counsel has thereafter taken me through the judgment of the lower appellate court to point out that though an application under order 41 rule 27 of the civil procedure code was filed by the appellants which was allowed granting leave to the appellants to produce such document, the learned judge has erroneously taken a view that such document was not produced and, consequently, the land registration document was not considered whilst passing the impugned judgment. learned counsel further pointed out that this itself vitiates the findings of the lower appellate court to the effect that the appellants have failed to establish their claim with regard to the disputed property. learned counsel has thereafter extensively taken me through the documents on record to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard shri sudin usgaonkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and shri dukle, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. the above appeal was admitted by this court by an order dated 01.04.2009, on the following substantial questions of law: (a) whether the courts below committed illegality in finding fault with the appellant for not proving the source of acquisition of title of his predecessor in title, when such a challenge could only have been thrown by the heirs of bozro or fulu and the same was not available to the respondents? (b) whether the first appellate court committed illegality in discarding the sale deed on the ground of identity, when identity of the property was not in issue before the trial court; the parties being adidem on the same? (c) whether the first appellate court overlooked that the counterclaim of the respondents filed in the trial court to declare the sale deed of 1974 null and void having been dismissed, and there being no challenge thereto before the appellate court, the said sale deed was good title against the respondents? (d) whether the courts below committed illegality in holding that the suit is barred by limitation, when clearly, the cause of action for the relief of injunction had arisen well within the period of limitation? 3. shri sudin usgaonkar, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants, has pointed out that the suit filed by the appellants is on the basis of a sale deed executed .....
Tag this Judgment!