Advocates:
['ADV PARAG S RAO', '', 'ADV AGNETHA CASSANDRA LOBO', 'ADV JOSEPH VAZ']

1 Wp 421 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 421 OF 2016

EL SHADDAI CHARITABLE TRUST, REP

HEREIN BY ITS CONSTITUTED POA, MR.

GODFREY MACHADO AND ANR., ... Petitioners

Versus

MR. SANTOSH LOBO AND 8 ORS. ... Respondent

Mr. Parag S Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. J. Vaz, Advocate for the Respondents.

Coram:- C. V. BHADANG, J.

Date:- 2nd May, 2016

ORAL ORDER:

By this petition, the petitioners, who are original defendants no.8 and

9 are challenging the orders dated 14/3/2016 and 12/4/2016 passed by the

learned Adhoc District Judge, Mapusa, Goa in Civil Suit No.1/2012.

2.

The brief facts are that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had filed the

aforesaid suit for declaration and mandatory and probative injunction in

respect of a property better known as "Aradichem Abta" situated at

Gaunsavaddo, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa. The suit was initially filed against the

2 Wp 421 2016

respondent nos.3 to 6. It appears that the respondent nos. 7 to 9 were added

subsequently by way of an amendment. It was contended that after the filing

of the suit, the respondent nos. 5 to 6 have executed sale deed dated

25/6/2007 in favour of the present petitioners. The suit initially filed was for

correction of survey record. Be that as it may, during the course of

deposition of respondent no.1 i.e original plaintiff no.1, the respondents

sought to produce in all four documents, namely, the certificate issued by the

Comunidade of Mapusa dated 1/11/1937, three sale deeds dated 1/8/1977,

16/8/1977 and 31/8/1977 and a Gift Deed dated 29/8//1905, which the trial

Court has allowed to be taken on record and have been exhibited by which

the certificate by the Communidade and the three sale deeds are taken on

record and are exhibited. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the petitioners are

before this Court.

3.

I have heard Mr. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Vaz, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos. 1 and 2. With the

assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused record and the impugned

orders.

4.

At the out set, it is necessary to mention that the petitioners have no

objection for exhibiting the Gift Deed and there is no challenge for the

exhibition of the same. Thus the only issue which survives is regarding the

3 Wp 421 2016

certificate dated 1/11/1937 and the three sale deeds of the year 1977.

5.

It is submitted by Mr. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners that

neither the certificate nor the sale deeds are public documents within the

meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is submitted that

the first and the second respondents have produced notarized copy of the

three sale deeds and the certificate which is not permissible and particularly,

in the absence of compliance with sections 65, 66 and 67 of the Evidence

Act. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order, which does not set out

appropriate reasons, while dealing with the objection raised on behalf of the

petitioners, deserves to be set aside.

6.

On the contrary it is pointed out by Mr. Vaz the learned counsel for the

respondents, that the original certificate dated 1/11/1937 along with its true

translation has been produced on record. In so far as the three sale deeds are

concerned, the learned counsel placed reliance on section 65 (f) of the

Evidence Act in order to submit that under law the certified copy of the said

document is permitted to be issued. He submits that the original certified

copy was with witness during recording of his deposition and that a notarized

copy was produced on record, which has been exhibited.

4 Wp 421 2016

7.

The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in so far as the

sale deeds are concerned, it is not recorded by the learned trial Court that the

original certified copy was with th