continue to be the property of the deceased
Mr.Gregory D'souza at the point of his death and on
his death it will pass on to the executors of the
Will and therefore, in their absence, in any case
without notice to them, the conveyance of the
property in favour of Mr.Randelia could have never
taken place in Law. The silence of the so called
decree-holder to get the document registered in his
favour for a long period of 30 years after the decree
was passed raises doubt about genuineness of the
whole transaction. It is common ground that it is
only on the basis of the consent decree, that the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 are trying to raise
construction on the land. It is apparent from the
interim order made by this Court referred to above
that the plots were to be reserved as recreation
ground. It appears that there was some litigation
between the predecessor of respondent no.1 and 2 and
the Society. The Society which was kept in management
of the property, it appears, has kept the Court,
where that litigation was pending, in dark about the
order made by this Court. There is already
allegation made against the defendant no.1 Society
that it was making attempt to use the property for
commercial purpose. Now the respondent nos. 1 and 2
