F.M. Reis, J.

1. Heard Shri S.D. Padiyar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri S.M. Singbal, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 14/06/2007 on the following substantial question of law:

(i) Whether the Courts below misconstrued the sale deed dated 20.5.1982 at Exhibit DW. 1/E in holding defendants (present respondents) to be exclusive owners of the suit property thereby affecting the result of the suit ?

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the point for determination framed by the first appellate Court whilst deciding the appeal in respect of a relief for permanent injunction claimed on the basis of ownership as well as exclusive, uninterrupted, peaceful possession over the suit property, cover all important questions involved in the case ?

(iii) When the record of rights prepared under the provisions of Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 in respect of the suit property show the entry pertaining to the name of original plaintiff in occupants column, thereby attracting presumption under Section 105 of the said Code as regards possession of the property, whether the Courts below were right in refusing the relief of permanent injunction to the plaintiff, merely on the basis of purported sale deed of the suit property in favour of the defendants and when the defendants had admitted occupation of the house structure in the suit property by the plaintiff before their purported purchase of the suit property ?

(iv) Whether in a suit for permanent injunction for resisting interference with possession of the property, plaintiff who sues on the basis of his ownership as well as peaceful, uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the suit property can be denied the relief of permanent injunction sought for only on the ground that he has failed to establish the ownership and/or title to the property ?

(v) Whether the findings given by the Court below on the plaintiffs claim as legal heirs of late Pandhari Borkar are not in ignorance of evidence on record particularly death certificate of original plaintiff Vasant Borkar at Exhibit PW1/A which clearly disclosed that the original plaintiff Vasant Borkar was the son of Shri Pandhari Borkar ?

(vi) Whether the findings given by the appellate Court that the property which the defendant purchased tallies with the land allotted to the vendor Smt. Kalyani Shirodkar in the partition deed on 1978 is not illegal and arbitrary in as much as the same is rendered on no evidence or without any evidence in support thereof ?

(vii) Whether in the absence of any issue being framed regarding Pandhari Borkar's second marriage and the original Plaintiffs claim being the son of Pandhari Borkar, can the Courts below render a finding that Plaintiff's failed to prove their links to Pandhari Borkar ?

2. Shri S.D. Padiyar, learned Counsel for the appellants in support of the aforesaid substantial questions of law has pointed out that according to the appellants, he is the co-owner of the disputed property. The learned Counsel further points out that the sale deed pursuant to which the respondents are claiming title is in respect of the property under Survey No. 204/8, whereas the suit property is surveyed under No. 204/10 of Chimbel village. The learned Counsel further points out that the sale deed itself is null and void, as according to him the vendors of the respondents do not have any exclusive title to the property. The learned Counsel further points out that the appellants are children of the second wife of original plaintiff Pandhari Borkar. The learned Counsel further points out that by excluding the appellants, the property was being partitioned by the other co-owners of the property and, as such, according to him all such transactions are not binding on the appellants and they have an independent right to the disputed property. The learned Counsel further points out that there is a house which is located in the disputed property