Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Mr. D'Costa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that by specific Order dated 22nd January, 1997, the plan marked "X", submitted along with the plaint was allowed to be placed on record and, through the evidence of PW. 2, an Engineer, it was proved, that the boundaries of the land as well as the land acquired by the State Government and the land originally granted and alleged to have been encroached, were duly established and identified by the plaintiff. The trial Court proceeded totally on erroneous premises by answering issue No. 1 in the negative. He further submitted by referring to the provisions of Articles 535, 552 and 559 of the Portuguese Civil Code that the suit was within limitation, even if it was presumed that the encroachment on the suit property was made by defendant No. 1 or his father way back in 1946, as the limitation under the Portuguese Civil Code in such cases is of 30 years and every interruption of prescription results into further extension of limitation period. Defendants No. 1 and 2 did not file their reply and, therefore, it has to be presumed that they did not contest the suit. On account of the defendant No. 1 choosing not to contest the suit, the title of defendants No. 3 and 4 was not marked and their share was only provisional unless inventory proceedings on the demise of their mother had concluded. Without such inventory proceedings, the share of defendants No. 3 and 4 in the property of their grandfather could be only provisional and they did not acquire an independent right to contest the suit. Defendant No. 4 was born in 1963 and he attained the age of 18 years in the year 1981. In addition, defendant No. 1 had himself approached the plaintiff for the first time in 1967 for regularisation of their encroachment and the same request was repeated in 1972-73. It was finally rejected by the plaintiff in 1975. These interruptions would be also relevant in deciding the issue of limitation under the Portuguese Civil Code. The plaintiff further contended that defendant No. 1 and his late father had grabbed the land of the plaintiff over and above the grant made in favour of defendant No. 1 in 1907. They had not taken any steps to get the encroached land regularised till 1967, though during the intervening period about 16 to 18 encroachers were granted such a benefit under the Code of Communidades. As the share of defendants No. 3 and 4 was not fortified, they had no independent right to apply for regularisation and in any case, the suit was filed in 1981 when defendant No. 4 had attained the age of 18 years.

9. Article 324 of the Code of Communidade (Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.61) states that it is permissible to communidades to give on permanent lease uncultivated land which is not being used and even that cultivated under pulses when they are applied for cultivation of paddy, fruit trees or for building of houses. As per Article 325, no leases can be given of firstly land of common usage; secondly land indispensable for cattle grazing; thirdly land used as access of neighbours; fourthly land used for stocking of harvest and other works necessary for cultivation and protection of fields; fifthly destined for water reservoirs for irrigation of fields or for breeding of fish and so on. As per Article 329, the petitions for lease will be directed to the Governor General and will be presented in the respective Administration of Comunidades. Chapter IX, Section II of the Code of Comunidades deals with the encroachment found out by or without complaint and on application made, there is a provision for regularisation of the encroachment by payment of market value prevailing at the time of encroachment, plus 25 % more of such value. There is a register of encroachment that is required to be maintained by the Comunidade. Thus, the rights for grant of leases as well as seeking regularisation of encroachment on the Comunidade land for cultivation are originating and governed by the provisions of the Code of Comunidades. The defendants succeeded the original grantee i.e. Egidio the father of defendant No. 1.