This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20/06/2011 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc District Judge – I, FTCI, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 333 of 2010 by which the said appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 14/12/2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (Trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 136/90/A, came to be dismissed.

2. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the said Civil Suit No. 136/90/A whereas the respondents were the defendants therein. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they are arrayed in the cause title of said suit.

3. The plaintiff no. 1 and deceased plaintiff no. 2 are husband and wife and plaintiffs no. 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) are their children whereas the defendants no. 1 and 3 are brothers being children of the original defendant no. 5, since deceased. The defendants no. 5(a) to 5(f) are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 5. The plaintiffs had filed the said Special Civil Suit No. 136 of 1990, inter alia, for declaration that the suit house namely the new portion exclusively constructed by the plaintiff no.1 and as shown in the sketch, bearing house no. 717 belongs exclusively to the plaintiffs and defendants had no right to the same; for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to open the lock put by them on the front door on the right hand side as well as the locks put by them on the two rooms and to remove all their belongings from the room of the suit house and to vacate the suit house; and for permanent injunction. Originally there was an ancestral house in the property belonging to the parents of the plaintiff no. 1, which was constructed by the father Shri Sadashiv Lotlikar, who expired on 28/03/1968. The subject matter of dispute is the new house allegedly constructed by the plaintiff no. 1 in the said property which new house is adjacent to the old ancestral house of the parents. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff no.1 had, in the year 1968, carried out the construction of the suit house and had started residing in the same and also carried out repairs to the old house. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants no. 1 and 3 forcibly took possession of the part of the suit house and started occupying the same and this deprived the plaintiffs of a room where they used to do pooja and also appropriated the belongings of the plaintiffs and closed some of the rooms of old house and the access to the new house.

4. The defendants filed their Written Statements resisting the suit and inter alia, they claimed that the suit property and the suit house belong to the defendants, plaintiffs, mother of the defendant no. 1 and one brother and two sisters. They alleged that the suit house was constructed by their late father and defendant no. 1 after obtaining the necessary licence from the Margao Municipal Council, in 1967 and that the defendants are in possession of one bed room; plaintiffs are in possession of one bedroom; his brother is occupying one room and the mother is occupying one room. They claimed that it was the late mother of the plaintiff no.1 and of the defendants no. 1 and 3, who had locked the southern side room long back. According to them, the store room was under lock and the key to this lock always used to be with the mother. They further claimed that since Inventory Proceeding were not instituted after the death of Sadashiv Lotlikar, the suit was not maintainable.

5. Following issues were framed by the Trial Court:

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit house bearing no. 717 belongs exclusively to them and the defendants have no right?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to open the lock put on the front door on the right hand side and also on the two rooms put by the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff