Dismissed

Mr. Wilson J. Braganza through His Duly Constituted P.O.A. Mr. John Braganza v. the State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2013AO/52/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against trial court's rejection of temporary injunction application in a property dispute. Court held trial court was right to dismiss due to alleged suppression and delay, but dismissed appeal did not preclude statutory action against the structure.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation that dismissal of appeal does not prevent statutory authorities from acting against the structure if illegal.

Mr. Wilson J. Braganza through His Duly Constituted… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 52 OF 2013

¶3

MR. WILSON J. BRAGANZA THROUGH HIS DULY CONSTITUTED P.O.A. MR. JOHN BRAGANZA ... Appellant Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents

¶4

Shri M.S. Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. P. Bhandari, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1,2,3,6.

¶5

Coram:R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:27th September, 2013

¶6

ORAL ORDER :

¶7

The order dated 29/04/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, North Goa at Panaji by which order the application exhibit D23 filed by the appellant/plaintiff for temporary injunction came to be rejected is the subject matter of the above Appeal From Order.

¶8

The suit in question has been filed for a mandatory order for demolition of the suit structure and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed whereby the relief sought was to restrain the defendants no.7(a) to 7(i) from interfering in any manner in the suit property or any part thereof and from raising any structure and or occupy the suit structure or any part thereof. The said application was replied to on behalf of the

¶9

¶10

contesting defendants. The Trial Court had by the impugned order rejected the said application inter alia on the ground that the case of the plaintiff suffers from suppression of facts and that the plaintiff has belatedly approached the Court. In so far as the suppression of facts is concerned, the Trial Court was of the view that since the plaintiff has not disclosed that there is a covenant in his Sale Deed which refers to a sale of 81 square metres out of the larger area of the plaintiff to some third parties there is suppression of facts by the plaintiff. In so far as the ground of delay is concerned, the Trial Court was of the view that since it is the plaintiff's own case that the construction was made in the year 2010 the application filed was belated. It is required to be noted that in the plaint the plaintiff has averred that a hut which admeasures 36 square metres and which was existing in the structure was sought to be converted by putting up construction consisting of laterite stones in the year 2010. It appears that prior thereto the plaintiff has been complaining to the statutory authorities for alleged breach of the CRZ Regulations on the ground that the construction put up is in the prohibited area.

¶11

In my view, refusal of the Trial Court to exercise discretion in the facts and circumstances which have been adverted to in the earlier part of this order cannot be taken exception of. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The Appeal From Order is accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of the Appeal From Order would not preclude the statutory authorities from

¶12

¶13

taking action against the structure in question if they find the same to be illegal and not in accordance with law.

¶14

R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶15

Mr. Wilson J. Braganza through His Duly Constituted P.O.A. Mr. John Braganza v. the State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Wilson J. Braganza through His Duly Constituted P.O.A. Mr. John Braganza v. the State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Gunu Narayan Vasta and 5 Ors., Vs Smt. Usha Anant Lad @ Usha C. Pai and 2 Ors.

Shri. Jose Marcel Dias Rep. through His Attorney Holder Mr. Janardhan Dongrikar Vs Smt. Lourdina D'Souza @ Diana D'Souza

Smt. Hirawati Vassudev Morajkar Vs Shri Prakash Rawal and Anr.

Shri. Keshav Shirvoikar and 3 Ors. Vs Shri. Anand Shirodkar and 2 Ors.

Mr. Suvarnkumar v. Verlekar and Anr., Vs Kishor B. Verekar (Since Deceased) through His Lr'S

Mr. Suvarnkumar v. Verlekar and Anr., Vs Kishor B. Verekar (Since Deceased) through His Lr'S