The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie possession with the right to obtain and retain such possession, and the court upheld the impugned order restraining the petitioner from dumping slack in a portion of the suit property.

By this petition, the petitioner (original defendant) is challenging the judgment and order dated 27/7/2015 passed by the learned District Judge at Ponda in Misc. Civil Appeal No.130/2014. By the impugned judgment the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal, thus partly granting the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The petitioner is restrained from dumping slack in part of the suit property.

2. The brief facts are that the respondent has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners for a declaration that the document dated 7/2/2008 is forged, illegal and without any legal sanctity. The respondent is seeking a decree for possession of a distinct portion of the suit property admeasuring 7400 which is marked by letters A,B,P,Q,R,S and H at Exhibit “C” and for an injunction restraining the petitioners or anybody on their behalf, from illegally dumping slack or any other waste material in the aforesaid portion of suit property admeasuring 7400 sq.mtrs and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner or anybody on their behalf from interfering in the suit property in any manner.

3. The case made out in the plaint is that there is a larger property bearing survey no.472 at village Madkai, Ponda, Goa, which is owned by the respondents, which is admeasuring 1,20,250 sq.mtrs. Out of this, an area admeasuring 89,850 sq.mtrs was acquired for the purposes of the Industrial Development Corporation. The suit property is towards the eastern side of the larger property. The petitioners who are running an industry on plot no.E-6 is to the western side of the area which is left out from survey no.472 after acquisition. The case made in the plaint is that the petitioner no.1 has unauthorizedly carried out encroachment in the suit property to the extent of 7400 sq.mtrs where the petitioners are dumping slack generated out of its industrial operation.

4. The respondent nos.2 and 3 herein are the original defendants nos2 and 3 before the trial Court. The petitioner claims that it is in lawful and peaceful possession of the land admeasuring 27,000 sq.mtrs from out of survey no.472 and the petitioner has acquired lease hold rights over the same by obtaining final possession which is duly signed by the Attorney of the respondent no.1. It is contended that although the said land adeamsuring 27000 sq.mtrs has not still been used for any business activity, “sometimes the by-product namely slack is stored on the plot which slack is being sold to the independent contractors. It is contended that the petitioner has obtained lease hold rights over 27000 sq.mtrs of land by following due process of law for “rent price” of Rs.4,53,600/-sq.mtrs, which is acknowledged by Shri Nilesh Kamat, respondent no.3 herein. It is contended that the petitioner having obtained lawful possession of the property on payment of the “rent price” the respondent no.1 is not entitled to any order of temporary injunction.

5. The learned trial Court by order dated 17/10/2014 had dismissed the application for temporary injunction on the ground that the documents produced show that the petitioner is in possession of 27000 sq.mtrs of land since the year 2008 upon payment of the necessary rent which has been received by the respondent no.1. In so far as the challenge to the genuineness of allotment in favour of the petitioner is concerned, the learned trial Court had found that at the stage of grant of temporary injunction the Court has to take the documents on the face of it and cannot go into the legality or illegality of the same “which are required to be proved at the time of evidence”. In short, the learned trial court found that the petitioner has been put in possession of the land, notwithstanding the challenge to the genuineness and legality of the documents which can be gone at the trial. In that view of the matter, the application for temporary injunction came to be rejected.

6. The Appellate Court framed