The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the identity and extent of encroachments, and the grant of mandatory injunction to address such encroachments.

JUDGMENT

M S Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Valmiki Menezes for the Appellants and Mr. A.D. Bhobe for the Respondents No.1(a), (1)(b),1(c) and 1(d).

2. This Second Appeal was admitted on 12th October, 2011, on the following substantial question of law :

"Having reversed the finding of the Trial Court holding that the plaintiffs had proved title to, and extent of the suit property, and having accepted that the plan produced by PW1, Sagun Naik in evidence, depicted all the encroachments, whether the Appellate Court committed a grave error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction while dismissing prayer clause (a) of the suit".

3. The Appellants are the original Plaintiffs and the Respondents are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.47/2001/B, seeking mandatory injunction and damages in the context of the encroachments made by the Defendants into the property claimed by the Plaintiffs. The encroachments, as alleged, pertain to extensions of a portion of the residential house of the Defendants, a hut and a toilet block.

4. The Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ponda (Trial Court) dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit by holding that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish that they were the owners in possession of the suit property surveyed under No. 106/1(part) of Curti Village, as described in paragraphs 3 and 3(a) of the plaint. The Trial Court held that some third party was the owner of this property and, therefore, the Plaintiffs could not complain of any encroachments on the suit property.

5. The Judgment and Decree made by the Trial Court by dismissing the Plaintiffs' suit was appealed by the Plaintiffs instituting Regular Civil Appeal No.39/2009 before the District Judge-3, North Goa, at Panaji.

4. The District Judge-3, Panaji (First Appellate Court) quite correctly took cognizance of the Decree obtained by the Plaintiffs as against the third party establishing that the Plaintiffs were indeed the owners of the suit property. The First Appellate Court, therefore, held that the Plaintiffs were indeed the owners of the suit property and had right to question the encroachments on the suit property.

5. The First Appellate Court, however, dismissed the Regular Civil Appeal No.39/2009 by holding that the identity of the encroachments was not properly established by the Plaintiffs by leading cogent evidence.

6. Mr. Menezes, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs pointed out that the encroachments were described in sufficient details both, in the plaint, as well as on the plans annexed with the plaint. He pointed out that evidence was led in respect of the encroachments and it is not the law that in every case some expert has to be examined to prove the plans. He submits that there was no serious contention raised as regards the identity of the encroachments and, therefore, the First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No.39/2009, after having held that the Plaintiffs were indeed the owners of the suit property. He, therefore, submits that the substantial question of law is required to be answered in favour of the Plaintiffs.

7. Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the Defendants defends the impugned Judgments and Decrees based on the reasoning reflected therein. He points out that in the absence of proof as to the identity of the alleged encroachments, no effective Decree could ever have been made and, therefore, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned Judgments and Decrees.

8. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

9. The records indicate that the Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit by recording finding that the Plaintiffs had not established title/ownership to the suit property and, therefore, were not the proper relators to complain about any alleged encroachments in the suit property.

10. Now, the issue of title/ownership of the Plaintiffs has been settled in Regular Civil Suits No.35/2002 and 36/2002 produced in evidence before the First Appellate Court. Based thereon, the First Appe