The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strong evidence to support claims of possession and the legal principles governing the grant of temporary mandatory injunction.

1. By this appeal, the appellants-defendants have challenged an order of temporary mandatory injunction passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vasco on 6.10.2017, directing the eviction of the defendants-appellants from the suit premises, which admittedly belongs to the respondent no.1-plaintiff.

2. The parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and the defendants as per their original status for the sake of convenience.

3. Admittedly, the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of operation of barges, had purchased the suit property known as “MATUEM” bearing Survey No.201/7 of Village Sancoale along with two structures which originally belonged to M/s. Trimurti Exports, which had mortgaged the same to plaintiff no.3-Canara Bank. Since M/s. Trimurti Exports failed to repay the borrowed loan amount, Canara Bank -defendant no.3 took possession of the suit premises under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) and published an E-auction on 19.3.2016 in a local daily newspaper. The plaintiff participated in the E-auction and as a successful bidder purchased the suit property. Defendant no.3 -Canara Bank executed the Sale Certificate on 18.05.2016 in favour of the plaintiff and handed over vacant possession of the suit property along with the suit structure to the plaintiff. It is also an admitted fact that said Sale Certificate is registered before the Sub Registrar, Mormugao, Goa on 2.6.2016.

4. The plaintiff, during inspection of the suit property, found the defendants no.1 and 2 in occupation of the suit property. On inquiry, it revealed that defendant no.1 is the employee of erstwhile owner, who had temporarily occupied the suit house and he would vacate it. It is further contended by the plaintiff that thereafter on 6.6.2016 he found defendants no.1 and 2 had again trespassed into the suit structure ad-measuring 35.456 sq.mtrs. The plaintiff, therefore, had issued a legal notice dated 7.3.2017 to the defendants no.1 and 2. It had also obtained cancellation of Residence Certificate dated 27.7.2016 issued in favour of the defendants no.1 and 2. The plaintiff had also lodged a police complaint against defendants no.1 and 2 on 28.6.2017 for obtaining fraudulent Residence Certificate. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that defendant no.2, who is the wife of defendant no.1, threatened to involve the staff of the plaintiff in cases of outraging her modesty. She had abused the staff of the plaintiff in filthy and abusive language. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed the present suit seeking declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction, inter alia, moved an application for temporary mandatory injunction praying for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises.

5. The defendants no.1 and 2, in their written statement, inter alia, raised an objection of maintainability of suit for non-joinder of necessary party as well as the issue of limitation. The defendants nos.1 and 2 have denied most of the averments in the plaint. However, it is contended that since May 2005 defendant no.1 along with his wife is residing in the suit premises bearing H.No.448 as a statutory tenant, as he was employed as a driver of the Offshore Hi-tech Engineering Private Limited represented by its Director, Shri D.N.Kamat. According to the defendants no.1 and 2, in view of the oral contract with him, he was allowed to reside in the suit premises by paying cash amount of Rs.500/- per month towards rent. He was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month by adjusting the amount towards payment of rent. The defendants no.1 and 2 further contend that no rent receipts were issued in-spite of oral request. Having worked for some period with the Offshore Hi-Tech Engineering Private Limited, he was absorbed in Offshore Hi-Tech Engineering Private Limited. Defendant no.1 worked with the Offshore Hi-Tech. Engineering Private Limited and then wa