The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiffs had co-ownership rights in the disputed property and that the sale deed executed by the defendants was null and void. The Court also clarified that the amendment to the plaint was not barred by limitation and reverted back to the date of filing of the suit.

1. Heard Mr. Kholkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. Admit on the following substantial question of law:-

(i) Whether the suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction is maintainable when the title of the plaintiffs has been disputed.

(ii) Whether the Appellate Court committed illegality in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not barred by the law of limitation when new relief sought by the plaintiffs by way of amendment in the year 2010 was barred by limitation.

(iii) Whether the Appellate Court overlooked the document viz. inventory proceedings no.187/1909, Exhibit c-112 colly which states that the suit property which is described under item no.3 and which is further divided into plots 'C' and 'D' were allotted to Ana Luiza and Serafine Antonio Francisco and not to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs did not have right, title or interest in the suit property.

(iv) Whether the suit can proceed after the amendment application is allowed, without affording opportunity to the defendants to file additional written statement or without affording opportunity to the newly added defendant to file written statement.

(v) Whether the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction is mandatory when some of the co-owners are not impleaded in it.

(vi) Whether the suit for injunction without asking for declaration and possession is maintainable.

3. Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service of notice on the respondents after admission. By consent, heard forthwith.

4. This appeal is directed against the judgment, order and decree dated 22/02/2013 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.31/2012 by the District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao ('First Appellate Court').

5. By the impugned judgment, the judgment and decree dated 13/01/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sanguem, Goa ('trial Court') in Regular Civil Suit No.56/2000 has been quashed and set aside and the said suit has been decreed. The defendants are permanently restrained from interfering in any manner with the suit property and from raising any construction therein. They have been directed to demolish the portion of the house so far constructed in the suit property and to restore the land to its original position. The Sale Deed dated 11/05/1992 executed by Shri Orlendo Lobo, Iyres Lobo and Eddy Lobo in favour of defendant no.1, has been declared as null and void.

6. The appellants and respondent no. 3 are the plaintiffs, whereas respondents no.1 and 2 are the defendants in the said suit. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner as they are arrayed in the said suit.

7. Initially, the said suit was filed by plaintiffs no.1 and 2 against four defendants. The said suit was filed in May 1994 and registered as Special Civil Suit N0. 73/1994. The present respondent no.1 was defendant no.1 whereas Shri Orlendo Lobo, Iyres Lobo and Eddy Lobo, the brothers of the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2, were defendants no.2 to 4. The suit was for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The permanent injunction was to restrain defendant no. 1 from interfering in any manner with the suit property and from raising any construction therein and to restrain defendants no.2 to 4 from selling or transferring the suit property either wholly or in part thereof to any person or changing the nature of the said property. The mandatory injunction was to direct the defendant no.1 to demolish the portion of the house so far constructed in the suit property and to restore the land to its original position.

8. The case of the plaintiffs was as follows :

There is a property known as “Modvolgaly” also known as “Mordevoril Xir” situated at village Sanguem (formerly at Cotarlim) bearing Matriz No.39 and Survey No.19/8 of village Sanguem. The said property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs, which was originally belonging to the