The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the deed of partition and the application of the Indian Evidence Act to determine ownership rights.

Heard Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the Courts below erred, misconstrued and misinterpreted the Deed of Partition dated 24/07/1991 to arrive at a conclusion that the Respondent no.1 had constructed the suit house exclusively from his own expenses and he is the owner of the suit house?

(ii) Whether the Courts below committed error of law by not analysing the evidence to know the real intention of the parties for execution of the said Partition Deed dated 24/07/1991 and thus misinterpreted Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?

(iii) Whether the Courts below committed error of law to conclude that the possession follows ownership and that the Respondents are the only owners of the suit house when admittedly licence of the same stands in the name of father of the Appellant No.1 and the Respondent no.1 and that the Respondents along with Appellants are co-owners of the suit plot and possession of one co-owner is possession of all co-owners?

3. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 30/10/2012 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 109/2011, which in turn was filed against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 29/04/2011 passed by the learned Civil judge Junior Division, Margao (trial Court), in Regular Civil Suit No. 31/1999/D. The appellants are the original defendants whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs.

4. The parties shall be hereinafter referred to in the manner in which they are designated in the cause title of said Regular Civil Suit No.31/1999/D.

5. Suit plot bears survey no.172/3, of village Guirdolim and it admeasures 2400 square metres. The same is a part of a property known as “Birbulem” or “Cautem” bearing Land Registration office No.30921 and Matriz No.16. The said plot of land was purchased by Shri Joaquim D’Costa by Sale Deed dated 04.06.1975 and when the wife of Joaquim D’Costa died on 19.06.1986 she left behind her, her said husband and children, namely plaintiff no.1, defendant no.1, Mr. Caetano D’Costa, Mr. Caetano Jose D’Costa and Mr. Camilo D’Costa. By Deed of Partition dated 24.07.1991, the suit plot was partitioned amongst the plaintiffs, defendants, said Joaquim D'Costa and others in two parts namely plot 'A' admeasuring 723 square metres and plot 'B' admeasuring 1599 square metres. The said plot 'A'(suit plot) is allotted jointly to the plaintiffs and defendants and plot B is allotted to Caetano D’Costa and his wife, Caetano Jose D’Costa and Camilo D’Costa with usufruct right to Joaquim D’Costa.

6. Plaintiffs' case, in short, is as follows:- In the year 1989, the plaintiff no.1 constructed the house in the suit plot with permission of his father and others with due licence from the Panchayat, exclusively with his own money and for his residence, thought the licence for construction was obtained in the name of the father. This was because the plot of land was in the name of the father. Though the suit plot is jointly owned by both the parties, the said house exclusively belongs to the plaintiffs whereas the defendants are only entitled to half of the suit plot as allotted in the said deed of partition. The plaintiffs had allowed the defendants to occupy a part of the said house comprising of two rooms, on the right side while entering, temporarily at the request of the defendants whereas the remaining house was occupied by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff no.1 is working in Kuwait and comes down to Goa once in two years and sometimes during the absence of plaintiff no.1 the plaintiff no.2 was residing at Curchorem. The house is in the name of the plaintiff no.1 in the Panchayat records and he pays the house tax. On 06.07.1998, the plaintiff no.1 came down to Goa and while he was staying in his house in the su