Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT GOA
G.S.Patel, J
Devendra Raghuraj Deshprabhu – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Vassudeo Deshprabhu (deceased) through heirs: Vasudeo R Deshprabhu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of property involved is critical in eviction matters. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims made must be supported by relevant evidence in ownership disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. failure to properly identify property undermines claims of possession. (Para 8 , 15 , 18 , 23) |
| 4. adverse possession claims require established ownership and sufficient proof. (Para 16 , 22 , 24) |
| 5. court firmly rejected all claims due to lack of evidence. (Para 26) |
ORAL ORDER:
1. I have heard Mr Pangam for the Appellants and Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents at some length. I am not persuaded that any substantial questions of law arise justifying the admission of the second appeal. For the rest of this discussion, I will refer to the parties as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
2. A few facts will be necessary. The Appellants are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.440/2000/C-B(new)/Special Civil Suit No.82/1990/A-B(old). This was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji. The Respondents sought a decree of eviction and mesne profits against the Appellants. The premises in question were described in the plaint thus:
“The hou
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
