Advocates:
['ADV J ABREU LOBO', '', 'ADV PRATIKSHA JUBA MANDREKAR', 'ADV LINGUDKAR SNEHA KISHOR', 'ADV FERNANDES JASMINE MERILYN', 'ADV ALMEIDA COUTINHO CLEOFATO GARRETT R', '', '', 'ADV SHAILESH REDKAR R &', 'ADV IVAN SANTIMANO R &']

1

sa no.61 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

SECOND APPEAL NO.61 OF 2019

1. Mr. Carlton Fortes

Son of Mr. Gilbert Fortes,

Major of Age, And his wife,

2. Noella Fortes,

Major of age,

Both r/o of T-6 Excel Residency,

Kerant, Caranzalem,

Near SBI Branch Panaji,

Ilhas, Goa.

.... Appellants

V/s

1. Smt. Sonhia Lobo,

Wife of Shri John M. Lobo,

Aged 59 years, And her husband,

2. Shri John M. Lobo,

s/o Jose Sebastiao Xavier Lobo,

aged 75 years,

both r/o of Luisa House,

5^th Cross Road,

I.C. I Colony, Borivali (W),

Mumbai 400 103.

3. Lina Maria Luisa Catarin Alvares

Major of age,

and her husband

4. Julius Soares

C/o. Sonia Lobo,

both r/o of Luisa House,

5^th Cross Road,

I.C. I Colony, Borivali (W),

Mumbai 400 103.

5. Mr. Gilbert Fortes,

And his wife,

6. Mrs. Martha Fortes, (deceased)

2

sa no.61 of 2019

Both r/o Flat No. 8

3rd Floor, Lily Rose,

36, Mogul Lane,

Mahim, Mumbai 400 016.

7. Mr. Peter Fortes,

And his wife,

8. Mrs. Jeanette Fortes,

Both r/o of Fortes Villa,

Deolali, Nasik District, Maharashtra.

9. Mr. Mario Fortes,

Alias Mr. Chaucer Forts,

And his wife,

10. Mrs. Jessy Fortes,

Both residents of 13, Cauvery,

Chembur Rupkala Co-op.

Housing Society,

Chedda Nagar, Mumbai.

11. Mrs. Bebvinda Games,

r/0 19508, Nancy Circle, Cerritos,

CA 90703, USA.

12. Mr. Shane Games,

r/o 4772, Larwin Avenue,

Cypress, CA 90630, USA.

13. Charlene Gomes,

r/o 5479, Centralia Unit, # 7,

Long Beach, CA 90808, USA.

14. Yurikco Gomes, r/o 1500,

Sherwood Village Circle,

Placentia, CA 92870, USA.

15. Mrs. Yvonne Carvalho,

And her husband,

16. Mr. Joe Carvalho,

both r/o 21144, Jasmine Way,

Lake Forrest, CA 92630, USA.

3

sa no.61 of 2019

1 7. Mr. Wenzil Fortes,

Resident of 13129,

Edwards Roads,

La Mirada CA-90663 8, USA.

18. Clayton Fortes

s/o Gilbert Fortes.

Major of age

and his wife,

19. Mary Ann Fortes,

Major of age,

Both r/o. 12 Sunrise Drive,

Parsippanny, NJ,

07054-4367, USA.

20. Vanessa Nea Fortes,

Major of age.

21. Fiona Fortes,

Major of age,

All residents of F lat No. 8,

3^rd Floor, Lily Rose,

36 Mogul Lane,

Mahim, Mumbai 400 016.

... Respondents

Shri J.A. Lobo, Advocate for the Appellants.

Shri C.A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 & 2.

Coram: - DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

Date: - 3^rd March 2020

ORAL JUDGMENT:

The appellants were the defendants 15 & 16 in Regular Civil Suit

No.50/2005/A before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco. The

respondents 1 to 4 were the plaintiffs in that suit. They sued 20

defendants. In the suit, they sought a declaration that they were the co-

owners along with the defendants. They have also sought an injunction.

4

sa no.61 of 2019

2. Of all the 20 defendants, the 13^th defendant alone was served. As

a matter of irony, all the unserved defendants live in India, whereas the

13^th defendant lives in the USA. Eventually, save the defendants 15 and 16,

the rest were served, and the trial went on. In November 2012, the Trial

Court partly decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Regular Civil

Appeal No.2/2013 before the Ad hoc District Judge 1, South Goa. There,

the defendants 15 and 16 are the respondents 14 and 15. Again, these

respondents have remained ex parte. Then, on 30.09.2013, the appellate

Court allowed the appeal in its entirety. Aggrieved, the defendants 15 and

16 have filed this Second Appeal.

3. For convenience, we will refer to the appellants in this Second

Appeal as they were originally arrayed in the suit: Defendants 15 and 16.

Better still, as they alone challenged the ex parte decrees, let us call them

the contesting defendants. Similarly, we will refer to the respondents 1 to

4 as they were before the trial Court: the Plaintiffs.

4. In December 2014, after suffering a decree from the Appellate

Court, the contesting defendants claimed that they had been served with

summonses or notices neither in the suit nor in the First Appeal.

Accordingly, they h