SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Bom) 8

G.F.COUTO
Mahadeo Tatu Naik – Appellant
Versus
Ramakant Atmaram – Respondent


Advocates:
S.K. Kakodkar with A.F. Diniz, for Appellant; U.S. Kolwalkar, for Respondent No. 1.

JUDGMENT:- This Second Civil Appeal directed against the judgment dt. 31st Aug. 1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-

(a) Whether the provisions of Art.2307 of the Portuguese Civil Code are attracted to the case;

(b) Whether the lower Courts ought not to have held that on the facts and circumstances of the case the purported licence granted to the appellant's ancestors was irrevocable; and

(c) Whether the prayer of mandatory injunction was not barred by limitation.

2. At the hearing, however, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant restricted his submissions to the first two questions and did not press the third. Therefore, while disposing of this appeal, I will address myself only to the said first two questions.

3. A suit for possession has been filed by the respondent 1 against the appellant herein and the respondent 2 on the grounds that there exists a house bearing Gram Panchayat No. 74 situated at Vithalpur, Sanquelim. The land where the house is standing belonged to one. Dattaram Vithoba Fatarpenkar and was purchased on 13th September, 1966 by the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein. According to the said

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top