Bombay High Court
Greenpark Hotels And Resorts Limited ... vs Comunidade Of Parra, Thr. Its Attorney on 17 September, 2025
24 AO-23-2024.doc
Meena
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.23 OF 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.74 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.23 OF 2024
GREENPARK HOTELS AND RESORTS
LIMITED REP. BY SENIOR MANAGER,
AUTH. SIGNATORY VENKATA M. RAO
VEMURI ... APPELLANT
Versus
COMUNIDADE OF PARRA, THR. ITS
ATTORNEY ... RESPONDENT
Mr. Raunaq Rao, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Vishal Sawant, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED :- 17th September, 2025 P.C.:
1. his is an appeal from order dated 03.07.2024 by which the Adhoc Civil Judge Senior Division, in suit No. SCA 114/2023, has dismissed an application for temporary injunction at Exh.D3 iled by the Appellant who is the original Plaintif therein. he Respondent in this petition is the Defendant in the suit.Page 1 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:54:29 :::
24 AO-23-2024.doc
2. Before the trial Court, the Respondent has not iled any Written Statement but has only iled a reply to the application of temporary injunction along with a memo containing certain documents.
3. On examining the impugned order, what is striking is that the Respondents, who have not iled their written statement, have not denied the title of the Plaintif. he Plaintif claims title to the suit property which is surveyed under Survey No.50/41 through a Sale Deed dated 02.03.2022. hus, the title of the Plaintif through a registered Sale Deed, pursuant to which a mutation has been efected in the survey record, of the suit property, prima facie, establishes that it is the Plaintif who has title in the suit property.
4.Obviously, possession follows title and the Plaintif must be presumed to be in possession pursuant to the Sale Deed executed in its favour; the survey record, which raises a presumption of possession as the Plaintif is occupant of the survey record, has to be considered also to be considered as prima facie proof of possession. he Plaintif has obviously made out a prima facie case on the basis of this title, and on the basis of the fact that the Respondent has not denied this title.
5. From the reply of the Respondent, it is noted that the Respondent claims that it is the owner of land under Survey No.50/39 and Page 2 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:54:29 ::: 24 AO-23-2024.doc survey No.49/9. In the reply, the Respondent claims that the Plaintif has suppressed certain material facts, the same being suppression of the existence of a right of access through the suit property which is claimed to be in use by the villagers of the Northern side. here is no claim by any of the villagers by way of a suit or any other proceeding against the Plaintifs claiming such right of way. Such right of access claimed to be used by the Respondent, by villagers, is also not agitated by an intervention in this suit.
6. he inding rendered by the Trial Court that though the Plaintif has demonstrated title to the property , but has failed to demonstrate how the it is in possession of the suit property, is, on its face of perverse indings being contrary to the admitted title of the Plaintif. Once there is Sale Deed and an entry in a survey record which is not denied, and in the face of the fact that the Respondent has not iled any pleadings before the trial Court, such a inding is obviously perverse.
7. Having held that the title and possession are both prima facie in favour of the Plaintif, the Respondent, which is the Communidade, and not having claimed any right to the suit property in itself, or even in the reply, the balance of convenience would lie in favour of the Plaintifs. So also it is the Plaintif alone Page 3 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:54:29 ::: 24 AO-23-2024.doc would sufer irreparable loss and injury if the injunction sought was not granted, this being more so in the light of the fact that the Respondent raised no claim over the property even in the aidavit in reply.
8. Considering these facts, the impugned order is obviously perverse and based upon indings which are not in consonance with the predicates to be considered for passing an order of temporary injunction.
9. he impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside.
10. he Application at Exh.D-3 of the trial Court stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) thereof. he Defendant, its committee members, components, servants, agents, workmen, labourers, and persons acting for it or through it or on its behalf, are restrained until the inal disposal of the suit, by an Order of Temporary Injunction from in any manner from carrying out any further construction in the property of the Applicant/plaintif bearing Survey No. 50/41 of Village Parra and prohibited from entering or interfering in the property of the Applicant/Plaintif bearing Survey No. 50/41 of Village Parra.
Page 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:54:29 :::24 AO-23-2024.doc
11. he appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Page 5 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:54:29 :::