JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs, and the respondents are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.55/1984/B in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji (trial Court). Therefore, in this Appeal, the parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for convenience.

3. The plaintiffs relying upon a Gift Deed dated 23.02.1922, instituted the above suit for recovery of possession of the property, which they claimed, was the subject matter of the said Gift Deed from the defendants. The defendants resisted the claim, inter alia, by raising a counterclaim that the Gift Deed dated 23.02.1922 was never executed by their predecessor in title. In any case, the same was null and void.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and Decree dated 04.07.2000 but decreed the counterclaim. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Appeal No.201/2010 before the Adhoc District Judge-2, North Goa at Panaji (first appellate Court). By judgment and Decree dated 02.05.2012, the first appellate Court dismissed the Appeal. Hence, the present Second Appeal.

5. This Second Appeal was admitted on 10.10.2012 on the following substantial questions of Law:

(i) Whether Gift (23.02.1922) made in favour of the donee with reservation of usufruct do not lapses when donee expires before one of the donors, but the donee expires leaving behind heirs ?

(ii) Whether the Gift Deed (23.02.1922) drawn by the Notary under the Notarial Code, which records that a third party has signed at the request of the donor in accordance with the provision of the Civil Code in the presence of witnesses is valid and there is no need of any Power of Attorney in favour of said third party ?

(iii) Whether a deed drawn by the Notary under the Notarial Code is valid operative and effective and certified copy thereof is proof of Gift without their being legal requirement to call for the book of the Notary ?

6. At the very outset, Mr M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiffs, clarified that he was not pressing any ground based on Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and, therefore, no substantial question of Law was even framed on this issue. He, however, submitted that the two Courts concurrently erred in holding that the Gift Deed dated 23.02.1922 was never executed by Raiu or Radha alias Caxibai or that the same was otherwise null and void or not binding on the legal representatives of Raiu and Radha alias Caxibai.

7. Mr Costa submitted that the two Courts applied or rather purported to apply the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, the Indian Stamp Act, or the Transfer of Property Act for determining the validity of the Gift Deed, which was executed on 23.02.1922. He submits that the execution of this Gift Deed should have been examined on the touchstone of the Law then prevalent. He presents that the Portuguese Civil Code and the Notarial Law then prevalent permitted the drawing out of a Gift Deed by a notary public. He submits that where donors were illiterate or otherwise unable to sign, their authorized representative, even without a formal power of Attorney, could always sign on their behalf. He submits that since the two Courts did not consider all these aspects, this Appeal must be allowed.

8. Mr Costa submits that the two Courts failed to appreciate that the certified copy from the notarial records constitutes sufficient proof of the documents and the contents of such documents. He referred to some provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and the Notarial Laws concerning this proposition. Finally, he submits that since all this was not considered, the Appeal deserves to be allowed.

9. Mr Costa submitted that the two Courts have unnecessarily raised doubts about the Gift Deed of 23.02.1922. He pointed out that this Gift Deed was referred to and relied upon in the inventory proceedings of 1923, and even allotments were made based upon this Gift Deed. He pointed out that even in th