JUDGMENT -DESHPANDE D.G., J.:---This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 125/81 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, vide judgment dated 30th April, 1994.

2.The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are exclusive owners in possession of the immovable property known as 'ORNACODIL NOCODBAB' or 'ORNICODIL NOCODBAB TICAN', situated at Netorlim of Sanguem Taluka. The plaintiffs claimed ownership on the basis of two sale deed dated 11th May, 1970 and 11th July, 1970 and a deed of ratification dated 18th July, 1974, all of which were duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, quepem. They also relied upon the description of the property given in the said deeds. According to them, the property consisted of forest produce, including coconut groves, cashew groves, jackfruit and other fruit-bearing trees. Further, according to the plaintiffs, the property was surveyed by the Government in 1971, but two years before the filing of the suit the Government Forest Department felled and removed all the forest produce existing on their land known as 'MATTONIDONGOR', which is adjacent to the plaintiff property. The plaintiffs further learnt that a contractor of the forest produce from the Government/appellants had entered the property and had started cutting the forest produce and timber exiting in the Northern and Western sides of the suit property. Then the plaintiffs made enquiry and came to know that the original defendant No. 3 had advertised the sale of the forest produce and this act of the Government and contractor was illegal and, therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that they are exclusive owners in possession of the immovable property as stated in para 1 of the plaint and of all the timber and forest produce existing therein and the contract entered into with the defendant No. 5 by the Government for the sale of forest land is null and void and for further consequent permanent injunction.

3.The claim of the plaintiffs was opposed by the defendants in all respects. According to the Government, it is a forest land and the so-called title deeds do not clothe the plaintiffs with the right of ownership and the plaintiffs were never in possession. Thereafter, the trial Court framed issues, parties went to trial and ultimately the trial Court partly decreed the suit, i.e. the prayer for declaration about the plaintiffs ownership in respect of the suit property, was dismissed. However, the plaintiffs were held to be in possession of the suit property having a tittle of title to it and, therefore, their prayer for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants, etc., from interfering in the suit property, was granted. It is against this judgment and decree that the present appeal is filed.

4.It is next to be clarified that in the trial, the plaintiffs had not asked for any temporary injunction and none was consequently granted to the plaintiffs.

5.I have heard learned Government Advocate Shri Bharne, for the appellants and learned Senior Counsel Shri M.S. Usgaokar, for the respondents. Learned Government Advocate for the appellants contended that the judgment of the trial Court is wrong because once the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled for a declaration of ownership, then there was no justification in holding that the plaintiffs have a tittle of title to the suit property. He also contended that the plaintiff were never in possession of the property and the fact was amply proved on record because the Government after public notice and notice in the Government Gazette, had auctioned the forest produce in the suit land which was given on contract to the sub-contractor and who had acted under the contract and this was sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs were not in possession. He also contended that since the prayer for declaration of ownership was reject

Click Here to Read the rest of this document