JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant, the original plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, South Goa at Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2001, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21st December 2000 in his favour, directing the original defendant and their legal heirs to quit and vacate the suit premises by delivering vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for adjudication of the present appeal can be stated to be as under :-

One John Gomes, son of Antonio Gomes and Damaceno Gomes, the predecessor in title of the appellant filed an application for eviction under Section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings, (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, on 23rd January 1984 seeking eviction of one Sada Chari from a house bearing new house no.69 and old house no.119 situated in the property recognized as ''Mordi'' or 'tanki' at Navelim Salcete Goa under Chalta No.3 of P.T. Sheet No.305, City Survey Margao i.e. the suit premises. The opponent/defendant filed written statement denying the landlord/tenant relationship. The Rent Controller ordered inquiry under Section 21 of the Act to determine the existence of landlord/tenant relationship. The opponent entered in the witness box and denied the relationship and also denied the payment of any ground rent for occupation of the land under the dwelling house. On detail inquiry, the Rent Controller concluded to the following effect. “The claim of the opponent is of denial of landlord/tenant relationship is hereby held to be bonafide.”

3. On the said decision John Gomes John Gomes along with 10 others who claim to be the owners of the landed property ''Mordi'' or 'tanki' instituted a Regular Civil Suit No.263 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division at Margao, since the defendants who were inducted as tenants had denied the title of the plaintiffs and hence, they were not entitled to occupy the suit premises and sought the following reliefs.

“a) to order and direct the defendant nos. 1 and 2, to quit and vacate the suit premises, and deliver vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff's;

b) to grant a permanent injunction and restrain the defendant nos. 1 and 2, their heirs, agents, assigns, legal representatives, servants or anyone claiming through them from doing any work of repairs/reconstruction in respect of the suit premises or otherwise interfere in any manner with the property of the plaintiffs;

c) temporary injunction in terms of prayer (b)above;”

4. In the suit, the plaintiffs’ claim was denied in entirety by filing a written statement and objection was raised to the relief claimed in the suit, being mere recovery of possession and injunction without a declaration being sought. Lack of identity of the property was also staked to be fatal for the plaintiffs in their claim of ownership of the suit property. The relationship of landlord/tenant was denied and even the claim that plaintiffs are the owners of the landed property was specifically denied. On the contrary, a stand was taken that till July 1982, the property was not entered into anybody's name and to the knowledge of the defendants, the area of the land form part of Communidade. It was contended that the structure of the defendants was standing in the suit property for more than 45 years and the defendant no.1 was carrying his avocation of mechanic in his garage which was duly registered with the authorities.

5. The plaintiff no.1 entered in the witness box but since he died, while being examined, his evidence was discarded. His daughter Alia, entered the witness box, whereas in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, the son of the original defendant no.1 deposed along with two other witnesses including a surveyor. On appreciation of the evidence brought before the Civil Judge, the Suit was decreed by holding that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that the suit prope