2021 Supreme(Bom) 1359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M. S. Sonak, J.
Forest Department - Appellant
Versus
Administrator Of Communidades & Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 189 of 2008
Decided On : 14-10-2021

The right to sue accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the right of the plaintiff. The Trial Court erred in holding the suit barred by limitation. The provisions of Section 14 of the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968, raise a presumption in favor of the appellant about the ownership of the suit property. The defendant's failure to produce the Tombo books warranted an adverse inference. The Trial Court's finding on non-joinder of necessary parties was not valid.

Headnote:

Limitation - Property Dispute - Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 - [LIMITATION] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Article 112 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides a 30-year limitation period for suits by or on behalf of the State Government. The suit was filed within the prescribed period. The Trial Court erred in holding the suit barred by limitation. The right to sue accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the right of the plaintiff. The Trial Court failed to consider this and incorrectly concluded that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court's finding on limitation is liable to be set aside.]

Fact of the Case:

The Forest Department filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and possession of a property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding it barred by limitation and that the appellant failed to prove its title and possession. The appellant appealed against this decision.

Finding of the Court:

The Trial Court erred in holding the suit barred by limitation. The appellant had filed the suit within the prescribed period. The Trial Court failed to consider the clear and unequivocal threat to the appellant's right, which is when the right to sue accrues. The Trial Court's finding on limitation is liable to be set aside. The Trial Court also erred in its finding on the identification of the suit property and its boundaries. The appellant had sufficiently identified the property, and any confusion in correlating boundaries did not impact the grant of reliefs in the suit. The Trial Court failed to evaluate the documentary evidence properly. The Trial Court also erred in ignoring the provisions of Section 14 of the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968, which raise a presumption in favor of the appellant about the ownership of the suit property. The Trial Court's finding on possession and non-joinder of necessary parties is also liable to be interfered with. The suit is decreed in favor of the appellant.

Issues: The issues were whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether the appellant failed to identify the suit property, whether the boundaries of the suit property as pleaded correlated with the title documents, the impact of Section 14 of the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968, on the suit, whether the matriz documents relied upon by the defendant pertained to the suit property and could be regarded as documents of title, whether adverse inference was liable to be drawn against the defendant for failure to produce the Tombo books, and whether the finding of the Trial Court on non-joinder of necessary parties was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to sue accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the right of the plaintiff. The Trial Court erred in holding the suit barred by limitation. The appellant had sufficiently identified the suit property, and any confusion in correlating boundaries did not impact the grant of reliefs in the suit. The Trial Court failed to evaluate the documentary evidence properly. The provisions of Section 14 of the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968, raise a presumption in favor of the appellant about the ownership of the suit property. The defendant failed to establish its title to the suit property. The defendant's failure to produce the Tombo books warranted an adverse inference. The Trial Court's finding on non-joinder of necessary parties was not valid.

Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned Judgment and Decree are set aside. The suit is decreed in favor of the appellant, declaring the appellant as the owner in possession of the suit property. The defendant is restrained from interfering with the suit property. The application seeking stay of the Judgment and Decree is declined.