JUDGMENT:- These two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the parties to both the petitions, are common. The petitioners are the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 while the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the original plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.6 to 10 are the original defendants. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants.

2. The facts giving rise to these petitions, are as follows:

The plaintiffs contend that they are the sons of late Paulina D'Souza, who died on 18.11.1972. By virtue of a deed of succession dated 07.03.1990, the plaintiffs have been declared as successor of late Paulina D'Souza. She was also known as Dorathina. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are the real brothers while the defendant Nos.2 and 4 are their wives. The defendant Nos.5 to 10 are the tenants in the suit property. By virtue of sale deed dated 28.10.1967, the defendant No.3 Jose and Paulina D'Souza became the owner of the plot No.12 having an area of 488.25 square metres. In the year 1968-1969, said Paulina and Jose along with the defendant No.1, decided to construct a building in the property purchased by Paulina and the defendant No.3. Accordingly, plans were submitted to the Municipal Council for permission to make construction. Plan was sanctioned by the Municipal Council. The said sanction was granted in the name of Paulina and the defendant No.1, who was representing the defendant No.3 for the sake of convenience. Occupation certificate was also issued. The plaintiffs contend that this suit property was jointly owned by Paulina and Jose. They had spent equal amount for the construction of the said building. It is contended that the supervision and construction of the building, was entrusted to the defendant No.1 upon oral understanding. Paulina had paid a sum of Rs.61 ,668/- towards the costs of the completed work in the year 1970. For the construction of the second floor the parties were short of funds and. Therefore, they decided to obtain a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the bank and accordingly, ground floor of the suit building, was mortgaged with the bank and the loan ofRs.40,000/-. was obtained. It was also agreed that rent of the ground floor, collected by the defendant No.1 should be utilised for construction of the first floor. The mother of the plaintiffs had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant No.1 to enable to him to collect rent and supervise the construction work. The plaintiffs submit that the defendant No.1 has been collecting the rent, but he never gave any accounts to the plaintiffs in spite of repeated demands. The plaintiffs ultimately, came to Goa and they found that the defendant Nos.1 and 3 had refused to cooperate with the plaintiffs. Through the intervention of one Mariano, the plaintiffs got the possession of one of the flats. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree of Rs.4,94,974/- towards the rent illegally collected by the defendant Nos.1 and 3 and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the co-owners of the flat Nos.2, 4, 6 and shop No.3 and 4 in Pereira Building.

3, The suit was resisted by the defendant No.1. It is the contention of the defendant No.1 that although the plot was purchased in the name of the defendant No.3, the entire consideration was paid by the defendant No.1. He is the exclusive owner of the suit property. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant No.3 have any right in the suit property. The entire construction was done by the defendant No.1 and he had spent for the same. It is further contention of the defendant No.1 that the construction company, to whom a contract was given for construction had filed a suit against the defendant No.1 and at that time, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant No.3 came forward to pay the amount and the defendant No.1 had to satisfy the decree.

Further. it is contention that the plaintiffs have in fact trespassed into the fiat No.4 and thus, have no right to be in possession.

4. The def

Click Here to Read the rest of this document