Smt. Sweta Sushant Damaskar vs The Village Panchayat of Calangute

N.A. BRITTO, J.—Heard Shri J. P.D''Souza, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant. This is plaintiff''s second appeal arising from the Special Civil Suit No. 67/2002/B. The plaintiff had filed the said suit, after the defendant had refused to renew the licence of the plaintiff. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that the suit gada was at the existing place i.e. to say between two platforms in the market for the last 15 years, after having purchased the same from one Laxmi D. Shirodkar. According to the defendant -Panchayat, the said gada was noticed by the defendant for the first time in March, 1992 existing between two platforms in the market. It was also the case of the defendant that the said Laxmi at no time had a gada at the place where the plaintiff had erected the gada and she did not have a gada in the market. Learned Trial Court in para 20 of the judgment had stated that Laxmi Dattaram Shirodkar''s gada was outside the Village Panchayat Market building and has been illegally erected by the plaintiff inside the market, as can be seen from the photographs produced. Learned First Appellate Court observed, and in my view rightly, that the plaintiff was required to prove the existence of the suit gada in the market and that she was running a business therein for the last 15 years but the evidence on record was contrary to the case set up by the plaintiff.

The counsel on behalf of the plaintiff, relying on the case of Ajit Gaitonde and another (2009 (1) Goa L.R. 268 ) submits that no issue as regards the location of gada within market was framed by the learned Trial Court and therefore, this is a fit case to direct the Trial Court to frame such an issue and allow the parties to lead evidence, thereafter. As can be seen from the above, both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff''s gada, in between two platforms in the market was a new construction. First Appellate Court has further concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove its existence for the last 15 years. Being so, both the Courts have concurrently arrived at the findings that the plaintiff''s gada was not in existence in the market for a period stated by her and consequently, has dismissed the suit. It appears that the plaintiff purchased the gada from the said Laxmi, which was existing outside the market and erected it within the market. There is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, nor such question has been framed. Hence, dismissed in limine.