Bombay High Court
SA/57/2003 of SMT. MARIA F. DE SOUZA ZUZRATE, PANAJI-GOA 2 ANR., Vs SHRI KAMRUDDIN ALIBHAI VELJEE, PANAJI-GOA 2 ANR., on 5 December 2003
COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2003 SMT. MARIA F. DE SOUZA ZUZRATE, ....Appellants PANAJI-GOA 2 ANR., Versus SHRI KAMRUDDIN ALIBHAI VELJEE, ....Respondents PANAJI-GOA 2 ANR., SHRI P.P. SINGH,SHRI A.D.BHOBE,R.1(C) Coram:- R. J. KOCHAR, J. Date:- 5th December, 2003 P.C.: Heard. Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Issues
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SECOND APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2003
SMT. MARIA F. DE SOUZA ZUZRATE, PANAJI-GOA 2 ANR.,
....Appellants
Versus
SHRI KAMRUDDIN ALIBHAI VELJEE, PANAJI-GOA 2 ANR.,
....Respondents
SHRI P.P. SINGH,SHRI A.D.BHOBE,R.1(C)
-Coram:R. J. KOCHAR, J.
-Date:5th December, 2003
P.C.:
Heard. Mr. Singh contends that asubstantial question of law arises inthis appeal as to whether a person canenjoy the area in excess of the areapurchased by him by way of a Sale Deedexecuted in his favour? To my mind,however, having regard to the concurrentfinding of fact returned by the Courtsbelow and in particular, the discussionin paragraph 9 of the impugned Judgment,the question as posed will not arise forconsideration. On the other hand, thefinding of fact returned by the Courtbelow is that since 1962 the disputedportion is in possession and enjoymentof the respondents. Hence, no case forinterference. Rejected.
R. J. KOCHAR, J.