AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. None appears on behalf of respondent no.3, though served. By this Second Appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 12th January, 2010 passed by the District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No. 90/2009 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 112/2009 by which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco da Gama in Regular Civil Suit No. 41/2000/D by the appellants herein i.e. Regular Civil Appeal No. 90/2009 has been dismissed and Regular Civil Appeal No. 112/2009 preferred by respondent nos.1 and 2 herein has been allowed. It may be noted that inadvertently, the lower appellate Court in the impugned judgment has mentioned that Regular Civil Appeal No. 112/2009 was also filed by the appellants in Regular Civil Appeal No. 90/2009. Respondent nos.1 and 2 herein are the original plaintiffs in the suit filed against the appellants and respondent no.3 seeking reliefs of injunction and mesne-profits/ damages.
According to the plaintiffs, somewhere in March, 2000, the defendants encroached the property of the plaintiffs to the extent of 32 square metres on the eastern side by constructing two rooms and varandah. The defendants contested the suit and claimed that they are the mundkars in respect of suit house bearing no.181 and the suit shed was constructed with the permission of the father of the plaintiffs. The defendants further claimed that they were occupying the structure continuously and peacefully for a period of over 30 years with express consent of the parents of plaintiff no.1. In the suit, initially, issue no.4 was framed which reads thus :
"Whether the defendant proves that the def