Judgment : The above appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 24/6/2002 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short.) in Land Acquisition Cases No. 218/89/I, 224/89/I, 64/87, 221/89/I and 223/89/I. The M. C. A.s, tagged to the above appeals, are filed under Order XLI, Rule 27(aa) of Civil Procedure Code, for leave to tender in evidence a certificate of death regarding Satyabhama Bolnekar. By order dated 24/11/2011, this Court has directed that the said M. C. A.s shall to be considered along with the appeals. 2. Facts giving rise to the appeals, in short, are as follows: The Government had acquired land for 5 MLD Water Supply Scheme to Canacona and surrounding villages which was subject matter of L.A.C no. 64/87 and for construction of approach road to Talpona-Galgibaga Bridge on Canacona side, which was subject matter of other Land acquisition cases No. 218/89/I, 224/89/I, 221/89/I and 223/89/I. The properties involved in the acquisition, insofar as the above cases are concerned, were “Bandavoril” bearing survey no. 41/5 of Nagorcem Palolem Village; “Margavoril Xeta” bearing survey nos. 39/8, 39/15 and 39/16 of Nagorcem Palolem Village. The awards were made by the Land Acquisition officer, thereby determining the compensation and since there were disputes between the parties regarding the payment of compensation awarded, references were made by the Deputy Collector/L.A.O, Margao under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which gave rise to the said Land acquisitions cases. 3. There was no dispute that the acquired lands, concerned in all the above Land Acquisition Cases, were from the properties originally owned by Yessu Rama Naik and his wife Satyabhama who had only two daughters, namely Baiu alias Radha married to Zulo Naik and Kashi married to Laximan Bolnekar. The Genealogy of the said Yessu Rama Naik and said Satyabhama which is not disputed, is as follows: “CHART” 4. The appellants who are the legal representatives of Radha and Zulo claimed to be owners of 4/5th share in the acquired land and, therefore, claimed 4/5th share of the entire compensation. The respondents (Variks) claimed 1/5th share in the acquired lands, alleging that they had purchased the same from Purushottam Zulo Shet by Sale Deed dated 10/5/1968 and prayed that 1/5th share of compensation be paid to them. The respondents (Variks) claimed 1/5th share in the acquired lands, alleging that they had purchased the same from Purushottam Zulo Shet by Sale Deed dated 10/5/1968 and prayed that 1/5th share of compensation be paid to them. The third claim was of respondent, Ulhas Krishna Fondekar who claimed to be owner of 1/4th share in the acquired lands alleging that by Sale Deed dated 16/12/1982, he had purchased the 1/6th or more than 1/6th share in the entire properties from Ramchandra Balu Bolnekar, his wife Smt. Sita Ramchandra Bolnekar, Shri Laximan Balu Bolnekar and his wife Smt. Janki Laximan Bolnekar and by Sale Deed dated 11/6/1984, he had purchased 1/12th share in the entire properties from Smt. Laximi Vishnu Naik Gaunkar alias Putem and her husband Shri Vishnu Mukund Naik Gaunkar. He, therefore, prayed that 1/4th part of the entire compensation be paid to him. 5. In their written statement, Respondents (Variks) had pleaded that 3/4th of the property was inherited by the appellants out of which 1/5th share of Purushattam was purchased by them and that remaining 1/4th was devolved on Ramchandra Balu Bolnekar, Laxman Balu Bolnekar and Smt Laxmi Vishnu Gaonkar alias Putem who all sold their right in favour of Ulhas Krishna Fondekar. 6. The appellants (Shets) examined three witnesses. Respondents (Variks) examined three witnesses and Respondent (Fondekar) examined two witnesses before the Reference Court. 7. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court held that: 1/4th share of the compensation shall be paid to Ulhas Fondekar, 1/5th share of Datta Gopal Varik shall be paid in equal proportion to Chandrakant D. Varik, Ganeshyam D. Varik, Suryaji D. Varik, Ulhas D. Varik and Gopal D. Varik. 11/40th share of Shaba alias Sangtu Shet shall be paid as follows: 50% to his widow Smt. Rukmini Shaba Shet and the balance of 50% shall be again equally paid to his son Zulo Shaba Shet and to his daughter Smt. Oval Fatti Naik Gaonkar. 11/40th share of Vithoba alias Devappa alias Kittu Shet shall be paid in further equal shares to his sons Anandu Vithoba Shet and Suresh Vithoba Shet and daughters Smt. Vatsala alias Bheema Uttam N. Dessai, Smt. Shali Khushali Dessai and Smt. Sharada Yeshwant Govekar. 8. 11/40th share of Vithoba alias Devappa alias Kittu Shet shall be paid in further equal shares to his sons Anandu Vithoba Shet and Suresh Vithoba Shet and daughters Smt. Vatsala alias Bheema Uttam N. Dessai, Smt. Shali Khushali Dessai and Smt. Sharada Yeshwant Govekar. 8. In the present appeals, the appellants have challenged the grant of compensation to the Respondent (Fondekar) only and there is no dispute about payment of 1/5th of the compensation to the respondents (Variks). 9. In the Miscellaneous Civil Applications, the appellants have stated as follows: that the issue in controversy relates to the date of death of Laxman Bolnekar; that said Laxman expired before the death of his father-in-law Yessu and mother-in-law Satyabhama and, therefore, did not inherit any right in the suit property and consequently could not sell anything; that the Respondent (Fondekar) disputes the above case of the appellants and contends that Laxman died after the death of his in-laws and therefore had acquired 1/4th right; that the appellants have discovered a Certificate of Death of said Satyabhama Bolnekar in which whilst describing the two heirs of said Satyabhama, her daughter Kashi is described as widow of late Laxman Bolnekar; that therefore, it is clear that on the death of Satyabhama on 26/02/1928, since her daughter Kashi was a widow, Laxman had predeceased his mother-in-law Satyabhama and hence could not inherit anything from Satyabhama; the said Certificate of Death is therefore crucial for deciding the shares of the parties; that this public document was not in possession or knowledge or power of the appellants; hence the same be allowed to be tendered in evidence. 10. 10. By way of reply, the Respondent (Fondekar) has objected to taking on record the said death certificate on the following grounds:-that the appellants did not come to know about the existence of this document after the passing of the impugned Judgment; that no reasons have been given as to why the said document was not produced before the learned Reference Court; that though the appellants came to know about this document in November 2002, the application has been filed only in July 2011; that the reliance placed by the appellants on this document is misplaced since it only reveals that Caxi Dessaina was a widow as on 8th November, 2002 and not on the date when Satyabhama died; that the production of this document will only result in protraction of the appeals and would serve no justifiable purpose or cause. 11. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Advocate argued on behalf of the appellants, whereas Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate argued on behalf of the Respondent ( Fondkar). 12. Indisputably, as per the death certificates produced on record, Yessu Rama Naik died on 21/01/1903; his wife Satyabhama died on 26/02/1928; and Kashi, husband of Laximan died on 01/01/1939. There is no documentary proof in respect of the death of Laximan, the husband of Kashi. Since Kashi was alive at the time of both her parents, half right was inherited by her and the balance half would go the heirs of Radha and Zulo. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no issue between the appellants and Variks. He further argued that admittedly Kashi and her husband Laximan died without any issue. He stated that there is no dispute that half of the estate of Yessu and Satyabhama devolved upon Kashi. He contended that the limited issue is whether at any point of time, the estate passed to Laximan, due to the marriage of Kashi to him. Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out from the evidence on record that admittedly Laximan died prior to Kashi which means that kashi was widow. He contended that the limited issue is whether at any point of time, the estate passed to Laximan, due to the marriage of Kashi to him. Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out from the evidence on record that admittedly Laximan died prior to Kashi which means that kashi was widow. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the certificate of registration of death of Satyabhama Naik, sought to be produced under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C., sufficiently proves that Kashi was widow on the date of death of Satyabhama, i. e. on 26/02/1928, which in turn means that Laximan had died prior to 26th February 1928. He therefore submitted that A.W.1 Zulo Shet should be believed where he has stated that it appears to him that husband of Kashi might have died prior to the death of Yessu and Satyabhama. In that case, according to the learned counsel, no right would accrue to Laximan and the succession would pass solely to Kashi and from her to the appellants. He, therefore, argued that the vendors of Respondent (Fondekar) did not have any right and, hence, they could not have sold anything to Fondekar. In the alternative, Mr. Usgaonkar contended that if it is held that Laximan died after the death of Yessu Rama Naik but before the death of Satyabhama, then out of 50% right of Yessu, 25% would go to Kashi and Laximan which means that Laximan would be entitled to only 12.50%, i.e. 1/8th share which could go to the Respondent (Fondekar). 14. Learned Counsel for the respondents (Variks) adopted the arguments of Mr. Usgaonkar. 15. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of Fondekar, argued that the certificate of registration of death sought to be produced under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. cannot be allowed to be produced because under Section 17 of The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, only the fact relating to birth and death can be registered and there is no 35 provision for incorporating further information in the register. He submitted that the death certificate of Satyabhama has been already produced on record before the Reference Court during the course of evidence and there is no dispute that Satyabhama died on 26/02/1928. He submitted that the death certificate of Satyabhama has been already produced on record before the Reference Court during the course of evidence and there is no dispute that Satyabhama died on 26/02/1928. He further pointed out that the said registration certificate now sought to be produced mentions that Satyabhama Naik did not leave any properties behind, which admittedly is wrong. He argued that it may be admissible to prove the date of death of Satyabhama as 26/2/1928, but the same cannot be read as proof of the fact that Kashi was widow when Satyabhama died. According to Mr. Kantak, there is no legal sanctity to the other facts recorded in that certificate which are in addition to the fact of death. Therefore, except the date of death mentioned in that certificate, according to the learned Senior Counsel, nothing else could be looked into. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that there was no opportunity to the Respondent to rebut the additional evidence and that though the same was available with the appellants since November 2002, it has been sought to be produced and relied upon in November 2011, which is after almost nine years. 16. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the ownership of Ulhas Fondekar in relation to his 1/4th share in the said properties, is by way of registered sale deeds and unless the said sale deeds are declared null and void, it cannot be held that Fondekar has no right. According to him, the learned Reference Court, under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, could not have dealt with the legality or illegality of those sale deeds. He further pointed out that the question of ownership of Fondekar was subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No. 39/1992 filed by him against the appellants and respondents (Variks) and by judgment and decree dated 14/9/2004, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Canacona has held that the plaintiff has proved his ownership by virtue of the two sale deeds dated 16/12/1982 and 11/6/1984.The appellants of the present appeals had filed Regular Civil Appeal No.102/2004 against the said judgment and decree dated 14/9/2004. However, the learned Third Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated 14/9/2004. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the appellants of the present appeals filed the Second Appeal no. However, the learned Third Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated 14/9/2004. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the appellants of the present appeals filed the Second Appeal no. 95/2006 before this Court and by order dated 22/3/2007, the said second appeal came to be dismissed. In the circumstances above, it is the submission of learned counsel that the finding that Shri Ulhas Krishna Fondekar is the owner of the suit property has become final. Learned Counsel, on behalf of the respondent (Fondekar), further argued that the doctrine of judicial comity or amity requires a Court not to pass an order which would be in conflict with another order passed by a competent Court of law. In this regard he has relied upon “India Household and Healthcare Ltd. Vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd.”, [(2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 510]. He therefore, submitted that this Court would not give a contrary finding that Ulhas K. Fondekar has no right to the suit property. 17. Mr. Kantak, the learned counsel for the Respondent (Fondekar), further pointed out that though the date of death of Yessu Rama Naik is known to be 21/1/2003, that of Satyabhama is known to be 26/2/1928 and that of Kashi is known to be 1/1/1939, however, the date of death of Laximan Bolnekar is not known since no death certificate of said Laximan is on record. According to learned Counsel, the statement made by AW. 1, Zulo Shet that it appears that the husband of Kashi might have died prior to the death of Yessu and Satyabhama, has no support of any document and therefore cannot be relied upon. He further pointed out that the statement of said Zulo Shet and of Ratnakar Fondekar, to the effect that when Kashi died, her husband had already died, has also no support of any document. According to Mr. Kantak the said evidence of above witnesses, who were not even born at the time of death of Laximan, is hearsay. He submitted that the learned Reference Court has rightly avoided to record finding on the point of exact date of death of Laximan and has rightly relied upon the sale deeds. He therefore contended that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 18. He submitted that the learned Reference Court has rightly avoided to record finding on the point of exact date of death of Laximan and has rightly relied upon the sale deeds. He therefore contended that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 18. I have gone through the entire material on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 19. The point for determination is whether Laximan Bolnekar had absolutely no right to the said properties mentioned in the sale deeds dated 16/12/1982 and 11/6/1984, and if at all he had, it was only to the extent of 12.50%. 20. With regard to the Certificate of Birth sought to be tendered in evidence, under Rule 27 of Order XLI of C.P.C., Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Article 250 of the Code of Civil Registration of Goa, Daman and Diu dated 09/11/1912 which provides as follows: “As soon as a person dies, immediately or within a period never exceeding twenty four hours, his closest relations or, in the want of absence of relations, persons known to him, or in the last case and in the absence of these, his neighbours, shall make a declaration of death to the official of civil registration of the department (office) in whose area death occurs or corpse is.” Article 1 of the same Code provides that: “The Civil Registration that the State hereby enacts by this decree with the force of law, has the purpose of establishing authentically the juridical individuality of each citizen and to serve the base for his civil rights.” 21. It is contended that the certificate of registration of death sought to be produced under Order XLI, Rule 21 of C.P.C. has been maintained under Article 250 of the said Code of Civil Registration, which, according to learned Counsel, is still in force in the State of Goa. Be that as it may, the said Article 250 specifically speaks about the declaration of death to be made and not about any further declaration about any property or rights of the deceased or about relations of the deceased or as to whether some relative is a widow or not. The authenticity is with regard to the death of death and not regarding other facts. As has been rightly pointed out by Mr. The authenticity is with regard to the death of death and not regarding other facts. As has been rightly pointed out by Mr. Kantak, the learned Senior Counsel, in the said certificate of registration of death, one of the facts mentioned is that the deceased Satyabhama has left no properties. This is admittedly a false statement. Therefore, in my view, the said certificate of registration can be looked into only to know that Satyabhama Naik died on 26/2/1928 and for no other purpose. There is already on record the death certificate of Satyabhama proving that her date of death is 26/02/1928, which is not disputed. Therefore, first of all, the said certificate of registration of death is not relevant and I am not inclined to grant the Miscellaneous Civil Applications filed in all the appeals. 22. Thus, it cannot be said to have been proved that Laximan had expired prior to 26/02/1928. There is no death certificate of Laximan Bolnekar produced on record and mere casual and hearsay statements of Zulu Shet and Ratnakar Fondekar, in their testimonies, to the effect that when Kashi died, her husband had already died cannot be taken as truth of the said fact. Such shaky evidence cannot defeat the registered sale deeds. The learned Reference Court, in my considered view, therefore, rightly avoided to give finding on the exact date of death of said Laximan. Since the date of death of Laximan is not known, it is not possible to say that the said Laximan had no right to the suit property. 23. Article 1969 of the Portuguese Civil Code provides that the legal succession shall devolve in the following order:- 1. To the descendants; 2. To the ascendants, save what is provided in Article 1236; 3. To the brothers and their descendants; 4. To the surviving spouse; 5. To the collaterals not included in Clause 3 upto the sixth degree; 6. To the State, save what is provided in Article 1663. Article 1969 of Civil Code was modified by decree dated 31/10/1910 and by virtue of said modification, in the absence of descendants and ascendants, the intestate succession devolved on the surviving spouse, where at the time of the deceased spouse, it was not divorced or separated from persons and properties by judgment which has become final for want of appeal. Article 1969 of Civil Code was modified by decree dated 31/10/1910 and by virtue of said modification, in the absence of descendants and ascendants, the intestate succession devolved on the surviving spouse, where at the time of the deceased spouse, it was not divorced or separated from persons and properties by judgment which has become final for want of appeal. Again by decree No. 19126 dated 16/12/1930, the initial position was restored that is to say the surviving spouse was placed in the 4th order and brothers and their descendants in 3rd. However, though the brothers and descendants were placed in the 3rd order, the surviving spouse was given usufruct during lifetime. Thus, during the period from 1910 to 1930, the surviving spouse was at the third place in order of succession. The above legal position has not been disputed. 24. If the death of Laximan, son-in-law of Kashi had taken place before the death of Yessu Rama Naik, then no right at all would have accrued to said Laximan. If the death of said Laximan had taken place after the death of Yessu Rama Naik but before the death of Satyabhama, then Kashi gets only one fourth (1/4th) right at that time and hence Laximan would be entitled to 1/8th. Again, if the death of said Laximan had taken place in between 31/10/1910 and 16/12/1930, then his legal successor would have been kashi and not brothers of said Laximan. But if said Laximan had died after 16/12/1930, his 1/4th right devolves upon his brothers and then to the descendants of the brothers. 25. Admittedly, Kashi who died on 1/1/1939 that is after the death of both her parents, had become owner of ½ (50%) share of the entire properties. If her husband, Laximan was alive after the death of his mother-in-law, who died on 26/2/1928, as widow and had died after 16/12/1930, then on account of communion of assets, Laximan would become owner of 1/4th (25%) of share in the properties. Since Kashi and Laximan had no issues, the said 1/4th share of Laximan would devolve upon his brothers namely Ramchandra and Dulba. Dulba died as bachelor. Hence, the said 1/4th share devolved upon Balu, the son of Ramchandra, married to Salu and after their death, their children namely Ramchandra, Laximan and Laximi became the owners of said 1/4th , who all have sold the same to Ulhas Fondekar. Dulba died as bachelor. Hence, the said 1/4th share devolved upon Balu, the son of Ramchandra, married to Salu and after their death, their children namely Ramchandra, Laximan and Laximi became the owners of said 1/4th , who all have sold the same to Ulhas Fondekar. Since the date of death of Laximan is not proved, the above is the only conclusion which can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case, on account of the registered sale deeds dated 16/12/1982 and 11/6/1984, on record. 26. The learned Reference Court has relied upon the said sale deeds dated 16/12/1982 and 11/6/1984 and has held that 1/4th share of the compensation shall be paid to Ulhas Fondekar. In the recitals of both these sale deeds, it is mentioned that the said properties originally belonged to late Shri Essu Rama Naik Zoino and his wife and after their death the same was inherited by their children namely late Smt. Kashi Naik Bolnekar and late Smt. Bayu Zulo Shet and subsequently the said Shri Essu died during the lifetime of his children and son-in-law and subsequently the said Smt. Kashi and her husband, the said Laxman Naique Bolnekar died without any issue and hence the shares held by Laxman passed to his brothers Ramachandra Bolnekar and Dulba Bolnekar and that Dulba died in the state of being Bachelor and the sellers are the successors of said Ramchandra. Indisputably, by sale deed dated 16/12/1982, Ramchandra Balu Bolnekar and his wife Sita Ramchandra Bolnekar along with his brother Laxman Bolnekar and his wife Smt. Janki Laxman Bolnekar sold their share in the entire property which is stated to be 1/6th or more than 1/6th, to Ulhas Fondekar. Again, indisputably, by another sale dated 11/6/1984, Smt. Laximi and her husband Vishnu Mukund Naik Gaunkar sold their 1/12th share in the entire property to Ulhas Fondekar. There is nothing on record to prove that the recitals in the said sale deeds are false. There is no evidence to prove that Laximan, the husband of Kashi, had died prior to 21/01/2003, that is prior to the death of both his in-laws. There is also no convincing evidence to prove that Laximan died prior to the death of his wife Kashi. As rightly contended by Mr. There is no evidence to prove that Laximan, the husband of Kashi, had died prior to 21/01/2003, that is prior to the death of both his in-laws. There is also no convincing evidence to prove that Laximan died prior to the death of his wife Kashi. As rightly contended by Mr. Kantak, the learned Senior Counsel, the Reference Court could not have declared the two Sale Deeds as null and void and it was for the present appellants to file appropriate proceedings, at appropriate time, to get the said sale deeds declared null and void, in case the vendors had no right to the suit property. 27. In any case, said Ulhas Fondekar had filed a civil suit against the appellants and respondents (Variks) for permanent injunction to restrain them from obstructing him from enjoying the suit property. The suit property in the said Regular Civil Suit no. 39/1992 was the same 1/4th share of Ulhas Fondekar in the entire property. The Issue no.1 in the said suit was whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit property having acquired right in the same by way of purchase from Ramchandra Bolnekar, his wife and Laximan Bolnekar and from Laximi Gaonkar and her husband. By Judgment and Decree dated 14/9/2004, the suit came to be decreed. The said issue no. 1 has been answered in the affirmative by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division. In Regular Civil Appeal no. 102/2004, filed by the appellants of the present appeals, the learned Third Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao has upheld the judgment and decree dated 14/9/2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, in Regular Civil Suit no. 39/1992. The matter did not end here and the appellants of the present appeals filed Second Appeal no. 95/2006 in this Court and this Court by order dated 22/3/2007, dismissed the said second appeal, since it had no merit. Therefore, the finding that Ulhas Fondekar is the owner of 1/4th share of the entire property has become final. In the case of “India Household and Healthcare Ltd.” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that doctrine of judicial comity or amity requires a court not to pass an order which would be in conflict with another order passed by a competent court of law. In the case of “India Household and Healthcare Ltd.” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that doctrine of judicial comity or amity requires a court not to pass an order which would be in conflict with another order passed by a competent court of law. The learned Single Judge of this Court has already dismissed the second appeal due to which the finding of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, upheld by the Additional district Judge, has become final and if this Court now holds that Ulhas Fondekar has no right at all, or he has only 1/8th right, then that finding would be in conflict with the finding of the learned Single Judge, who has decided the Second Appeal No.95/2006. This, in my considered opinion, is not permissible. 28. In view of all that is discussed above, the point for determination gets answered in the negative. 29. In the result, all the First Appeals are without any merit. Hence, all the miscellaneous civil applications and the appeals are dismissed, however with no order as to costs.