Judgment : All the above Second Appeals are taken up together for consideration as they were ordered to be taken up as such. FACTS IN SECOND APPEAL NO.19 OF 2007 2. The Respondent filed the suit for declaration and restoration of possession. It was the case of the Respondent that he is lawful owner of a landed property known as "Dhansalichem Bata" of nachini cultivation with dwelling house therein situated at Manora, Raia, described in Land Registration No.32861 and is bounded towards the east by the property heirs of Jose Filipe Menezes, towards the west by that of Arnaldo M. de Menezes and brothers, towards the north by the road and towards the south by the property of same name of Apolinario Abundancio de Quadros. The said property is inscribed in the name of Filipe Mariano Quadros in the Land Registration Officer and is surveyed in the Record of Rights under No.349/1 having an area of 6675 square metres besides 125 square metres of the house and 25 square metres of the well. It was further the case of the Respondent that said Filipe constructed the well and the house out of the money he received from a lottery having got the first prize. The said Filipe expired on 03.10.1935 leaving behind his widow Antonia Colaco and parents as his legal heirs. The parents decided to keep themselves all the moveables against their half share in the property and left the suit property and the house for his widow and, accordingly, a Deed was executed before the Notary on 04.11.1936. It is further the case that upon the death of said Filipe, his parents came to the property with their children and sister of Appellant no.1 was also residing with them as she was young of 16 to 18 years old and the Respondent was five to six years old. It is further their case that in the year 1940, the Appellant was born as a illegitimate son of the said sister followed by illegitimate daughter who lived with her husband at Manora. It is further their case that the Respondent had left for Mumbai for getting a job in the Railways and after sometime he took the widow of late Filipe Mariano Quadros to Bombay due to her love and affection. It is further their case that the Respondent had left for Mumbai for getting a job in the Railways and after sometime he took the widow of late Filipe Mariano Quadros to Bombay due to her love and affection. It is further their case that his sister alongwith the parents and the Appellant no.1 had gone for work on the mines and the Respondent used to come to Goa and reside in the suit house. After the liberation of Goa, the Respondent came to Goa with his family and stayed in the house as often they wished without any objection from said Ana. The Respondent were always welcomed by the said Ana and the relationship between Respondent and his sister Ana were actually cordial and good. The reception of the daughter of the Respondent was also held in the suit house in the year 1971. It is further their case that the widow of the said Filipe had gifted a property to the Respondent on 07.05.1985. This act excited the Appellant no.2 who raised claims over the suit property and also claimed that it was his mother's house. But, however, the Appellant no.1 filed a suit bearing No.R.C.S. No.202/1986 and obtained Order to restrain the Appellants and also the widow of Filipe from interfering in suit property and the suit house with the exception of entrance room and verandah. Accordingly, they prayed for other reliefs as mentioned in the plaint. 3. The Appellants filed their written statement raising their preliminary objections on the ground that the suit deserves to be dismissed on account of inordinate delay. According to the Appellants, the mother of said Appellant no.1 said late Ana Quadros had been in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property till her death in 1982 without any obstruction and interference from anybody. It is further their case that the cultivation in the suit property was carried out by the Appellants since he attained majority and also from 1935 onwards along with the said mother. According to him, the said house was constructed by his mother Ana and that the Respondent no.1 had left Goa and that the occupation of the room of the Respondent was with the permission of the Court. According to him, the said house was constructed by his mother Ana and that the Respondent no.1 had left Goa and that the occupation of the room of the Respondent was with the permission of the Court. According to the Appellants, the Gift Deed is malafide and incompetent and has no title to the suit property and, as such, the Gift Deed deserves to be declared null and void. Alongwith the written statement, a counter claim was also filed by the Appellants claiming that the Gift Deed is null and void. It is further the case that the late Filipe had entrusted the property to Ana Quadros, mother of the Respondent as she paid off his debts and she was in actual possession of the suit house after the death of late Ana in 1982. The Appellants no.1 as such came in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the Appellants claim to be owners by adverse possession of the suit property. 4. The learned Judge after framing the issues and recording of evidence by Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.2001, partly decreed the suit and declared that the Appellants to be the owners in possession of the suit property and the suit house and the well along with the Respondent herein. The remaining reliefs came to be rejected. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the Appellants preferred an Appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, being Regular Civil Appeal No.76/2001. By Judgment and Decree dated 27.10.2006, the Appeal preferred by the Appellants came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal. FACTS IN SECOND APPEAL NO.20 OF 2007 6. The suit came to be filed by the Appellants against the Respondent on the ground that the Appellants are the owners in actual possession of the same property referred to herein above. It is the case of the Appellants that the mother of the Appellant no.1 late Ana Quadros was in quite absolute and uninterrupted possession of the said land and that the Appellant no.1 after attaining majority was helping his said mother in cultivating the land for the last 34 years and that the Appellant no.2 who is his wife also cultivated the said land alongwith the Appellant no.1 from the year May 1965. It is further their case that the said property was purchased by the maternal uncle of the Appellants late Filipe Mariano Quadros in the year 1932 and who had expired without any children entrusting the land to his sister said Ana Quadros as she paid debts of the said Filipe. It is further their case that the Respondent no.1 is his maternal uncle being the brother of the said late Ana Quadros permanently residing in Bombay and working in the Indian Railways for a period of 35 years. It is further their case that the Respondent no.2 was the widow of the said Filipe and that the Respondent stayed for a few days in the suit house and went to live with some relations in Nuvem Village. The Respondent also filed criminal complaints against the Appellants in July, 1986 and ultimately they attacked the Appellant and their daughter. It is further their case that the Respondent no.1 has no right at all to the suit property as late Filipe entrusted the property to the mother of Appellant no.1 who attended on him in his last days until his death. The Appellants further stated that they filed Regular Civil Suit No.327/1989 for the declaration that the Respondent no.1 was not entitled to obstruct, interfere or disturb with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the suit house and also for a permanent injunction. Temporary injunction was granted in the said suit. The Respondent also filed a suit bearing No.321/1987, seeking declaration and possession of the suit property. It is further their case that they were not aware about getting their names mutated in the Survey Records and as such during the survey proceedings, the name of late Filipe was maintained although he was dead. It is further their case that the Gift Deed executed in favour of the Respondent no.1 is null and void and liable to be set aside. 7. The Respondent filed their written statement disputing the claim of the Appellants. It is further their case that the Regular Civil Suit No.321/1987 was filed by them on 30.10.1987 disclosing about the Deed of Gift executed in the year 1985 and, as such, the Appellants had knowledge about the said Gift. The contentions of the Appellants in the suit were disputed in the written statement by the Respondent. 8. It is further their case that the Regular Civil Suit No.321/1987 was filed by them on 30.10.1987 disclosing about the Deed of Gift executed in the year 1985 and, as such, the Appellants had knowledge about the said Gift. The contentions of the Appellants in the suit were disputed in the written statement by the Respondent. 8. The learned Judge by Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.2001, partly decreed the suit and, inter alia, declared that the Appellants are the co-owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit property surveyed under No.334 of Manora Village with the dwelling house and the well. The remaining prayers came to be rejected. 9. The Appeal was preferred against the said Judgment and Decree before the learned District Judge being Regular Civil Appeal No.78/2001 which Judgment and Decree dated 27.10.2006 came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants. 10. The suit came to be filed by the Appellants in respect of the same property referred FACTS IN SECOND APPEAL NO.20 OF 2007 to herein above praying for a declaration that the Respondent is not entitled to obstruct, interfere or disturb with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property i.e. the land and the house bearing No.334 of Manora Village and also for a permanent injunction, inter alia, restraining the Respondent, their servants and agents from interfering, obstructing and disturbing with the possession of the said land and the said house. The suit was resisted by the Respondent and he filed his written statements raising similar defences as referred to in the pleadings in respect of the proceedings referred to herein above. By Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.2001, the suit was dismissed with costs. An Appeal was preferred before the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, being Regular Civil Suit No.77/2001 which by Judgment and Decree dated 27.10.2006, came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said Judgments, the Appellants have preferred the present Second Appeal. SUBMISSIONS AND THEIR CONSIDERATIONS IN ALL ABOVE APPEALS 11. I have heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 12. Being aggrieved by the said Judgments, the Appellants have preferred the present Second Appeal. SUBMISSIONS AND THEIR CONSIDERATIONS IN ALL ABOVE APPEALS 11. I have heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 12. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgments and pointed out that the Courts below have erroneously come to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish that they became owners of the suit property and the house by prescription. Learned Counsel further points out that the possession of the mother of the Appellant no.1 dates back from the time when the said Filipe was living prior to the year 1935 when he had entrusted the suit property and the house to the mother of Appellant no.1 namely said Ana. Learned Counsel further points out that from the time of the said entrustment, late Ana and thereafter the Appellants were in continuous unobstructed possession of the suit property and the suit house and as such they have acquired rights to the suit property and the house by prescription. The learned Counsel has further taken me through the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and pointed out that the possession established from the evidence on record is itself sufficient to come to the conclusion that the Respondent has lost right, title and interest to the property. The learned Counsel further points out that the Respondent failed to establish that he ever possessed any portion of the suit property and, as such, having failed to do so, the Respondent has lost his right to the suit property by prescription. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Judgments passed in all the aforesaid Appeals by the Courts below and pointed out that the Courts below have erroneously appreciated the evidence on record and have come to an erroneous conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish their claim and that they have become co-owners in possession of the suit house. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the possession of the property was not sought for a period of 30 years in view of the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code, the Respondent has lost his right of ownership over the suit property. 13. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the possession of the property was not sought for a period of 30 years in view of the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code, the Respondent has lost his right of ownership over the suit property. 13. On the other hand, Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel has pointed out that it is not disputed that the said Ana and the Respondent no.1 herein are brother and sister and further that the said Filipe was one of the brothers. It is further his case that upon the death of the said Filipe, half of the property belonged to his widow the said Respondent no.2 and the other half had devolved upon the brothers and sisters after the death of the parents as the said Filipe had no issues. Learned Counsel further points out that as the said Ana was a co-heir entitled to the estate of the said Filipe which devolved upon her as well as the other heirs including the Respondent no.1, the question to claim any right of prescription to the suit property to the execution of the other co-heirs without any adverse possession, does not arise at all. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the alleged claim of prescription is totally far fetched and cannot be borne out from the records as on the basis of the pleadings of the Appellants themselves, the possession of the Appellants over the suit property was permissive. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no infirmity committed by the Courts below whilst disposing the proceedings and as such there is no substantial question of law which arises in the present Appeal which requires consideration by this Court. 14. Before going into the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing in the above Appeals, it would be appropriate to state that the facts which pervades from the pleadings as well as the evidence on record : I It is not in dispute that there is a property known as "Dhansalichem Bata" which is surveyed under No.349/1 and situated at Manora, Raia, Salcete, Taluka. II The said property was purchased by Filipe Mariano Quadros in the year 1932 who was married to Antonia Colaco e Quadros. II The said property was purchased by Filipe Mariano Quadros in the year 1932 who was married to Antonia Colaco e Quadros. III The said Antonia was the original Defendant no.2 in Regular Civil Suit No.212 /1991 and 202 /1986 and has been deleted upon her death. IV It is also not disputed that the sister of the said Filipe Mariano Quadros is Ana Quadros whose son is Conceicao Quadros, who is the Appellant no.1 in the above Appeal. V The Respondent no.1 Salvador Quadros is the brother of the said Filipe Mariano Quadros and that said Filipe Mariano Quadros expired in the year 1935 leaving behind his widow the said Antonia Quadros as a moiety sharer and his parents as his legal heirs namely Novidade Quadros and Catarina Miranda. VI The said Novidade Quadros expired somewhere in the year 1957. VII On 05.05.1985, the said Antonia Colaco e Quadros, the widow of said Filipe Quadros gifted the property to Salvador Quadros on account of her disposable quota. The Survey Records in respect of the said property stand in the name of said Filipe Quadros and his name has been deleted and the name of the Respondent no.1 Salvador Quadros was inserted therein. VIII The Appellants Conceicao Quadros and his wife filed proceedings against the Respondent for a declaration that they are not entitled to obstruct or interfere or disturb with the possession of the suit property. The said property consists of open land as well as residential house. IX The claim of the Appellants in the plaint is that the suit property and the house was entrusted by said Filipe Quadros to Ana Quadros mother of said Appellant no.1 and that they are in absolute and peaceful possession of the property and the house existing therein and, as such, sought for the reliefs as referred to hereinabove. The suit filed by the Appellants was resisted by the Respondent disputing the claims put forward by the Appellants, besides on other counts that the widow Antonia Quadros was residing in the house after the death of Filipe Quadros and, as such, disputed the claim of the Appellants that they were in peaceful possession of the suit property. The suit filed by the Appellants was resisted by the Respondent disputing the claims put forward by the Appellants, besides on other counts that the widow Antonia Quadros was residing in the house after the death of Filipe Quadros and, as such, disputed the claim of the Appellants that they were in peaceful possession of the suit property. X The suits filed by the Appellants came to be dismissed by Judgment dated 18.04.2001 on the ground that the Appellants were the co-owners in possession of the suit property alongwith the Respondent and further held that as the said Filipe Quadros was residing in Bombay due to his services, the said widow was residing alongwith him. 15. The learned Judge while passing the impugned Judgment, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to establish that the Appellants were in exclusive possession of the suit property. The Respondent also filed the suit being Regular Civil Suit no.321/1987 on the basis of the Deed of Gift praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the suit property belonged to him. The said suit was partly decreed holding that the Appellants and the Respondent no.1 were the coowners in possession of the suit property. 16. The submission of Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants to the effect that the suit property was not mentioned in the Deed of Succession executed upon the death of the said Filipe Quadros and, as such, this infers that the suit property was not part of the inheritance of the said Filipe Quadros, the said contention deserves to be rejected. On perusal of the said Deed of Succession, only the moveable properties of the said deceased Filipe were mentioned therein. This itself shows that the immoveable properties were left out from the said Deed of Declaration and qualifications of heirs executed between the parties upon the death of Filipe Quadros. It is also well known that normally in such Deeds of Succession, the immoveable properties are not mentioned. In any, event merely because the immoveable properties are not mentioned in such Deed by itself does not mean that they have been excluded from the inheritance of the said deceased and as such belongs to the mother of the Appellant no.1, namely Ana. 17. In any, event merely because the immoveable properties are not mentioned in such Deed by itself does not mean that they have been excluded from the inheritance of the said deceased and as such belongs to the mother of the Appellant no.1, namely Ana. 17. In order to consider the contention of the Appellants that they have acquired the right over the suit property by prescription, it would be appropriate to consider the pleadings of the Appellants to ascertain as to whether on the basis of such pleadings any such right of prescription can be acquired by the Appellants. The pleadings of the Appellants disclosed that in the year 1935, the suit property along with the house was entrusted in favour of the mother of the Appellant no.1, said Ana. The word "entrust" in Oxford Law Dictionary, means to assign responsibility put into someone's care. Black's Legal Dictionary gives the meaning to the word "entrust" as to give the person responsibility of something usual after appreciating the confidential relationship. On plain reading of the meaning of the word "entrustment" itself discloses that the suit property which is alleged to have been given to the mother of the Appellant no.1 was on behalf of the said Filipe Quadros during his lifetime. The word "entrustment" itself means that the possession of the mother of the Appellants no.1 was a permissive possession on behalf of her said brother Filipe Quadros. It is not disputed that the relationship between the said Filipe and his sister Ana, were cordial and, as such, the question of claiming alleged rights of prescription over the suit property from the year 1935 would not arise at all. The pleadings of the Appellants itself nullifies the claims of prescription. Article 474 of the Portuguese Civil Code provides as under : "Possession is the retention or fruition of a thing or a right. Para One - Permissive acts or acts out of tolerance do not constitute possession. Para 2nd - The Possession continues when the retention or fruition of the thing or the right lasts or the possibilities of its continuation lasts." The said provision itself stipulates that permissive possession cannot be termed to be possession in law. Para One - Permissive acts or acts out of tolerance do not constitute possession. Para 2nd - The Possession continues when the retention or fruition of the thing or the right lasts or the possibilities of its continuation lasts." The said provision itself stipulates that permissive possession cannot be termed to be possession in law. Once the Appellant admitted in the pleadings that he was allowed to occupy the suit property by the said Philip Quadros, such permissive possession cannot be considered to be possession which would create any right in favour of the Appellants in prescription. Article 510 of the Portuguese Civil Code provides as under : "One who possesses a thing in another's name cannot acquire it by prescription except if the title of possession has been inverted, either due to an act of a third party, or by objection raised by the possessor to the right of the other in whose name he was possessing it and not refuted by the latter; but in such event the prescription shall run from the date of inversion of the title. Sole para: The title is said to be inverted when it is substituted by another title capable of transferring the possession or ownership (dominio)." 18. On going through the said provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code, when a person is enjoying a property on behalf of another, prescription does not operate unless there is an inversion of title. In the present case, there are no pleadings by the Appellants to that effect and as such, there was no inversion of title in favour of the Appellants which would create any right of prescription in their favour. 19. The Courts below while appreciating the evidence on record have come to the conclusion that Appellants were not in exclusive possession of the suit property. The Courts have further found that the possession of the Appellants was that of a co-owner along with the respondent herein. There is no dispute that the mother of the Appellant no.1 Ana as well as the Respondent being the brothers of the said Filipe, are entitled to the inheritance of the said Filipe Quadros after the death of the parents. There is no dispute that the mother of the Appellant no.1 Ana as well as the Respondent being the brothers of the said Filipe, are entitled to the inheritance of the said Filipe Quadros after the death of the parents. Article 2011 of the Portuguese Civil Code provides that the transmission of the ownership and possession of the inheritance to the heirs whether instituted or legal, takes place from the moment of the death of the estate leaver. Under Article 2015 of the Portuguese Civil Code, where many persons are entitled simultaneously to the same inheritance, their right shall be indivisible both in respect of possession as well as ownership, as long as the partition has not been affected. 20. In the present case, upon the death of the mother of the the said Filipe, in the year 1957, the rights over the suit property and the house of said Filipe devolved simultaneously on the mother of the said Appellant, Ana as well as the Respondent both in ownership and possession alongwith the other co-heirs entitled to the estate of the said parents. As such, the question of the Appellants claiming that they were in exclusive possession of the suit property cannot be accepted. Upon the death of the said Filipe, the rights of the suit property devolved upon his parents who were living at the relevant time. Upon the death of the said parents, the rights devolved upon the mother of the Appellant Ana and the Respondent along with the other co-heirs over all the properties including the suit property. Considering that the Appellants as well as the Respondent and the other co-heirs are entitled to the suit property in respect of the half share to said Filipe, the alleged possession of the Appellant is on behalf of all the said co-heirs. There is no evidence adduced by the Appellants to establish that any such possession of the Appellants was hostile to the other co-heirs or to the widow of the said Filipe and, as such, the question of claiming any right of prescription would not arise. The very fact that the name of said Filipe was shown in the Land Revenue Records in respect of the suit property itself would also establish that the Appellants never enjoyed the suit property as their own to claim that they have acquired rights to the suit property by prescription. The very fact that the name of said Filipe was shown in the Land Revenue Records in respect of the suit property itself would also establish that the Appellants never enjoyed the suit property as their own to claim that they have acquired rights to the suit property by prescription. All these factual aspects infer that the Appellants have never ascertained their rights to the suit property as their own to defeat the claims of the said heirs and that of the widow of the said Filipe. As no such evidence was available on record, I find that the Courts below were justified to come to the conclusion that the Appellants had failed to establish their claim of title by prescription over the suit property. 21. In the Judgment reported at (2009) 13 S.C.C. 229 in the case of L.N. Aswathama & anr. vs. P. Prakash, the Apex Court has held at para 17 thus: "17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is, adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence. (Vide P. Periasami v. P. Periathambi, Md. Mohammad Ali v. Jagdish Kalita and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma)." 22. In the Judgment passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.22/1990, dated 20.08.1996, dealing with the claim of adverse possession, it has been held at para 8 as follows : "8. To establish prescription, it is now well settled that the onus lies on the person pleading prescription, who must nor only specifically plead the ingredients of prescription but must prove that the party exercised such possession which possession was hostile to the right of the person claiming ownership. To establish prescription, it is now well settled that the onus lies on the person pleading prescription, who must nor only specifically plead the ingredients of prescription but must prove that the party exercised such possession which possession was hostile to the right of the person claiming ownership. Shri Usgaonkar naturally relies on paragraph 9 of the pleadings to show that in paragraph 9 all the essential averments have been pleaded insofar as prescription is concerned." 23. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court and this Court, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that they have prescriptive title to the suit properties cannot be accepted. The pleadings of the Appellant and the evidence on record do not suggest that the Appellants have made out any case to establish that they have acquired right to the suit property by prescription. 24. There is no dispute that there are Inventory Proceedings which have already been initiated upon the death of said Filipe which are pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao. The question as to when the Appellants would be dispossessed of the suit house is a matter which would have to be considered by the Inventory Court at the time of final adjudication of the proceedings on the basis of the allotment of the suit property to the interested parties therein. In any event, there is no relief sought by the Respondent in the present proceedings to seek the eviction of the Appellants in the suit property. The Inventory Court would consider the said aspect in accordance with law at the time of the final allotment in the Inventory Proceedings. But the fact remains that the Appellants are not the exclusive owners of the suit property and the said property is part of the inheritance of the said Filipe Quadros and his wife said Antonia, and their occupation is only as a co-heir entitled to the inheritance of the deceased. 25. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal which has to be considering under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and have rejected the claim of the Appellants that they have acquired title to the suit property by prescription. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and have rejected the claim of the Appellants that they have acquired title to the suit property by prescription. The findings arrived by the Courts below on the basis of the evidence on record cannot be interfered in this Second Appeals. The Appellants are unable to point out any evidence not considered by the Courts below is whilst coming to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish their prescriptive title over the suit property. 26. In view of the above, I find no merit in all the above Second Appeals which are accordingly dismissed.