Mrs. Minguelin Lobo vs Smt. Archana Sawant And The State

Case Name	Mrs. Minguelin Lobo vs Smt. Archana Sawant And The State
Equivalent Citation	(2005) 107 BOMLR 590
Petitioner	Mrs. Minguelin Lobo
Respondent	Smt. Archana Sawant And The State
Date of judgement	10 September, 2004
Bench Name	N Britto

Facts of the case – 

• Mrs. Minguelin Lobo vs. Smt. Archana Sawant, MANU-MH-1302-2004, is a dispute between two residents over the building of a boundary wall. The following are the case’s significant facts:
• The complaining party and owner of property in Mumbai, Maharashtra is Mrs. Minguelin Lobo.
• The defendant and owner of the next property is Smt. Archana Sawant.
• Mrs. Lobo filed the lawsuit, alleging that Smt. Sawant built a boundary wall that invaded her land.
• Mrs. Lobo’s endorsement hadn’t been obtained for the erecting of the contested wall, which allegedly breached property borders.
• Mrs. Lobo sought a court order to have the contested wall demolished and her property rights reinstated. Smt. Sawant claimed that the wall had been constructed within her ownership lines and denied any infringement of privacy.

Issues Involved – 

• Several legal hurdles were raised in the case, including:
• Real estate boundary determination: The key challenge was determining the precise borders of the buildings owned by both parties.

• Mrs. Lobo claimed that the erecting of a fence by Smt. Sawant encroached on her land.Building consent: It proved crucial to determine whether Smt. Sawant had secured all necessary licences or acceptance for the building of the disputed wall.
• Mrs. Lobo requested a court order to tear down the wall and restore her property rights, whilst Smt. Sawant sought to keep the wall in accordance with her claim of property.

Arguments advanced- 

• The following are the arguments advanced by both parties:

• Submissions of the Plaintiff (Mrs. Minguelin Lobo):

• Mrs. Lobo claimed that the contested wall was built without consent from her, impeding on her property rights.
• She alleged that the wall interfered on the property and fed an indication to back up her allegation.
• Mrs. Lobo underscored that the invasion was bothersome since it hindered her access to and utilisation of the land she owned.She asked the court to order the wall to be demolished and her property borders restored.

• Arguments of the Defendant (Smt. Archana Sawant):

• Smt. Sawant mentioned that the controversial wall was constructed within her ownership lines and did not intrude on Mrs. Lobo’s property.

• She stated that she secured the required distances and authorization from the local authorities for the wall’s construction.
• Smt. Sawant offered proof to back her assertion of property borders, such as real estate documents and survey reports.
• She asked a judge to deny the plaintiff’s claims and permit her to retain the wall she had erected.

 Judgement- 

• The decision in the matter of Mrs. Minguelin Lobo vs. Smt. Archana Sawant, MANU-MH-1302-2004, is not available in the information that was given to us. As a result, delivering an unambiguous explanation of the verdict and its results is impracticable.
• Based on the facts and arguments offered, the court would have investigated the evidence, including property papers, survey reports, and any further statements or expert views, to identify the precise property borders. The ruling of the court would have been based on the preponderance of the testimony given up by both parties.

Conclusion- 

• In conclusion, the case demonstrates the vitality of ownership and the importance of for careful demarcation inspection while erecting buildings near to other holdings. The option, which is not available.

written by Nishtha Tandon intern under legal vidhiya