The dismissal of a suit based on a false cause of action and limitation, and the Defendants' settled possession of the property.

JUDGMENT

M S Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, the learned Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Vinod Korgaonkar for the Appellants and Mr. S.S. Kantak learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rui Gomes Pereira and Mr. Abhijit Kamat for the Respondents.

2. The Appellants are the original Plaintiffs and the Respondents are the original Defendants, or the legal representatives of the Defendants in Special Civil Suit No.239/90/A, instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji. The parties to this Appeal will, therefore, be referred to as the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, for the sake of convenience.

3. In the plaint, the Plaintiffs pleaded that there exists a property bearing Chalta Nos.126 and 126-A of P.T. Sheet No.61 of City Survey of Panaji, in which, was situated a building comprising a ground floor, first floor, a garage, and a godown. The suit property originally belonged to Ramchandra Krishna Salgaonkar (Ramchandra), who was a widower and expired as such in 1969. The Plaintiffs claim title to the suit property and the building therein through the said Ramchandra.

4. The plaint further sets out that the ground floor of the building in the suit property was gifted by Ramchandra to one of his sons Prabhakar. However, Prabhakar let out the ground floor to some tenants and moved in with Ramchandra on the first floor. By a Will dated 2/2/1954, Ramchandra constituted Prabhakar as his universal heir. There was also a Deed of Succession dated 10/6/1976, by which, Prabhakar was declared as the sole and universal heir of Ramchandra. Accordingly, after the demise of Ramchandra in 1969, it was Prabhakar, who was enjoying and possessing all the assets left behind by said Ramchandra, including the suit property and the suit premises therein.

5. The plaint further sets out that Prabhakar died on 28/1/1988 and, after his demise, the suit property, including the first floor of the building, garage, and the godown continued to be occupied by his niece Vilasini Salgaonkar. In terms of Inventory Proceedings No.74/1988, instituted on the demise of said Prabhakar, the suit property, including the building therein and one vehicle was allotted to Plaintiff No.1-Namdeo, ( brother of Prabhakar ) who started residing in the suit property or rather the first floor of the building in the suit property, after the death of said Prabhakar. In September 1989, however, Namdeo was taken ill and required to be admitted at the Goa Medical College, from where he was shifted to Carambolim. Vilasini, however, continued to stay on the first floor of the building.

6. The plaint further sets out that one Muktabai Bandekar was the housekeeper, engaged by late Ramchandra. She, along with her grown-up daughter Kesar, was staying in the suit premises in her capacity as a housekeeper. In the Will, Ramchandra made a provision that Muktabai is given an allowance until her death by declaring her as his 'friend'. Muktabai lived in the suit premises until her demise on 23/11/1971. Kesar was married to one Bhaskar Velingker. Upon marriage, the name of Kesar was changed to Gulabbai. However, since her relationship with Bhaskar was strained, Ramchandra permitted said Kesar to also stay in the suit premises along with her mother Muktabai, out of pity. After the death of Muktabai, Kesar @ Gulabbai continued to stay in the suit premises until she expired in the year 1974.

7. The plaint further sets out that on 10/8/1990, when Vilasini had gone to her parent's residence, Defendant No.1 (Subhash), son of Kesar @ Gulabbai broke open the locks of the front door and took forcible possession of the suit building. Vilasini lodged a Police complaint, but, despite the same both, Subhash and Defendant No.2 (Bhaskar), continued to occupy the first floor, garage and the godown in the suit property. Therefore, it is these premises that are referred to as the suit premises in the S