The plaintiff's admission in the plaint regarding the provision of access was binding and could not be disavowed at a later stage.

1. The Second Appeal was admitted on 01.09.2005 on the following question of law:

“Whether when the plaintiff (respondent) himself having acknowledged and admitted of one metre access all along the western boundary being left for the use of the public and the defendants, the District Court could hold that the plaintiff (respondent) had not violated any of the civil rights of the defendants (appellants) and that the plaintiff (respondent) was under no obligation to reserve the said access?

2. Mr. Desai for the respondent argues that no such question of law arises. Having heard him at some considerable length, including on that aspect of the matter, and Mr Bhobe for the appellant, I am unable to agree.

3. The respondent was the original plaintiff to the suit. The dispute was about access to and through the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff brought suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division of Bardez at Mapusa, alleging that the defendants (the appellants before me) were interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of his property. This is a tract of land of about 850 square metres at Survey No. 15, Sub-Division No. 20, situated at Santarxett in the Village Aldona, within the limits of Aldona Village Panchayat, Taluka and Sub-District of Bardez, District of Goa.

4. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the property on 2nd June 1987 under a registered document. The plaintiff then had his name entered on the relevant survey records, following which he commenced construction of a house with the necessary permissions. This construction involved the erection of a compound wall along the property. The plaintiff’s case was that in early January 1995, when the wall construction began, the defendants obstructed the plaintiff. They filed police complaints. Work on the compound wall resumed in mid–May 1995. Despite previous warnings, the defendants once again interfered with the construction. The plaintiff sought police protection and a copy of that application is also annexed. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the plaint say this:

“10. That the plaintiff has partly completed the construction of the suit compound wall and partly is remaining as the defendants are obstructing from completing the same.

11. That the defendants are trying to use muscle power and force in order to stop the construction of the suit compound wall. The plaintiff has also left 1 mt. pathway all along the western boundary as an access for public use and also for the use of the defendants.”

(Emphasis added)

5. These were the main prayers in the suit:

(a) That the defendants be directed to stop interfering with the plaintiff in any manner with respect to the suit property;

(b) That the defendants be directed not to interfere with the construction of boundary wall of the suit property and the plaintiff be allowed to construct the same as per the permission obtained by him;

6. Issues were struck on 5th December 2001, thus:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is owner in possession of survey no.15/20?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was trying to construct a compound wall after obtaining necessary permission?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that due to the defendants obstruction he could not complete the construction of the compound wall?

4. Whether the defendants show that they have right of access through the plaintiff’s property?

5. Hence, what relief? What order?

7. Obviously, issue no. 4 lies at the centre of the present dispute. The Trial Court took evidence and delivered a judgment on 1st December 2003. It answered issues 1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative, but, importantly, answered issue no. 4 in the negative. Ultimately, the Trial Court decreed the suit in the following terms:

“The plaintiff is permitted to construct the suit compound wall after leaving the one metre wide access on the western side of the suit property. The defendants are restrained from interfering with the construction of the suit compound wall or the suit property enclosed by the suit compo