IMPORTANT POINT
The statutory scheme under the Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act shows that the question of title can be determined by the Civil Court and not by the administrator or the Government of Goa.

Headnote:Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act, 1964 - Section 15(1), (2) and (3) - Dispute regarding title of property and in particular legality or validity of alterations in the terms of the Will - Statutory scheme under the Act shows that the question of title can be determined by the Civil Court and not by the administrator or the Government of Goa - Civil Court would be the final authority in this behalf - Administrator would be bound by the judgment of the Civil Court - ‘J’, the Count of Mayem, married to one ‘F’, had six children (two sons and four daughters) - ‘J’ had grandchildren through his son Dr. ‘FA’ who was married to ‘R’ - ‘F’ died in 1903 - Half of her estate was allotted to ‘J’ and the other half to their children - ‘J’ bequeathed his disposable quota of properties allotted to him in the inventory upon death of ‘F’ - He died in 1929 - Upon his death, his disposable quota of properties was described as southern lot - Southern half of estate of Mayem was declared as ‘evacuee properties’ - Application filed before the Custodian for declaring southern half of Mayem as ‘non-evacuee property’ - Disputed questions of title arising by and between appellant and respondent 1 - Issues pending before different courts - Whether High Court was justified in holding that the matter is required to be considered afresh by the Government or an authorized officer - (No) - High Court should have allowed the Civil Court to go into the said question.
       Held : The statutory scheme under the said Act clearly shows that the question of title can be determined by the Civil Court and not by the administrator or the Government of Goa.(Para 20)
       The statute may not contain any explicit provision to hear a third party but it is not excluded either. The principle of natural justice as well as that of pro interesse suo would be applicable in such a situation.(Para 21)
       It has not been disputed that the Civil Court would be the final authority in this behalf. If that is so, the Administrator would be bound by the judgment of the Civil Court.(Para 22)
       Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that with a view to do complete justice between the parties, the following directions shall be issued :
       (i)The Civil Court would dispose of Suit No.154 of 1993 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without being in any way influenced by the observations made by the High Court;
       (ii)The Civil Court shall not grant any adjournment to the parties, save and except for sufficient and cogent reasons;
       (iii)The appropriate authority shall consider the application filed by the Respondents herein after the decision of the said suit in accordance with law.
       (iv)In the said proceedings, the Appellant may also be heard.
       (v)It would be open to the parties to raise all contentions before the said authority.(Para 24)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.

2. Jose Joaquim de Noronha was the Count of Mayem. He was married to one Filomena Correia Noronha. They had six children (two sons and four daughters). Jose Joaquim had grandchildren through his son Dr. Francis Antonio, who was married to Racardina. Filomena died in 1903. On her death, in the inventory, half of the estate was allotted to Dom Jose Joaquim de Noronha and the other half to their children. On or about 17/18.04.1929, Dom Jose Joaquim de Noronha bequeathed his disposable quota of properties allotted to him in the inventory upon the death of Filomena. He died on 20.04.1929. Upon his death, his disposable quota of properties was purportedly described as southern lot. Allegedly, the terms of the Will were later altered on 20.06.1930. The legality of such a course of action, however, is in dispute.

3. On or about 24.12.1964, the Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act, 1964 (for short, the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder came into force. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Act, which are relevant for our purpose read as under :

"15. Restoration of evacuee property. - (1) [Save as provided under section (3) and subject to such rules] as may be made in this behalf, any evacuee or any person claiming to be an heir of an evacuee may apply to Government or to any person authorized by it in this behalf (hereinafter in this section referred to as the authorized person) that any evacuee property which has vested in the Custodian and to which the applicant would have been entitled if this Act were not in force, may be restored to him.

(2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1) Government or the authorized person, as the case may be, shall cause public notice thereof to be given in the prescribed manner, and after causing an inquiry into the claim to be held in such manner as may be prescribed, shall -

(a)if satisfied–

(i)that the conditions prescribed by rules made in this behalf have been satisfied,

(ii)that the evacuee property is the property of the applicant, and

(iii)that it is just or proper that the evacuee property should be restored to him,

Make an order restoring the property to the applicant, or

(b)if not so satisfied, reject the application :

Provided that where the application is rejected on the ground that the evacuee property is not the property of the applicant, the rejection of the application shall not prejudice the right of the application to establish his title to the property in a Civil Court, or

(c)if there is any doubt with respect to the title of the applicant to the property, refer him to a Civil Court for the determination of his title:

Provided that no order for the restoration of any evacuee property shall be made under this sub-section unless provision has been made in the prescribed manner for the recovery of any amount due to the Custodian in respect of the property or the management thereof.

(3) Upon the restoration of the property to the evacuee or to the heir, as the case may be, the Custodian shall stand absolved of all responsibilities in respect of the property, so restored, but such restoration shall not prejudice the rights, if any in respect of the property which any other person may be entitled to enforce against the person to whom the property has been so restored.

Provided that every lease granted in respect of the property by or on behalf of the Custodian shall have effect against the person to whom restoration is made until such lease is determined by lapse of time or by operation of law."

4. On 14.11.1967, the southern half of the estate of Mayem belonging to Eurico Silva was declared to be evacuee properties.

5. A suit was instituted before a learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, Goa, in the year 1993 for a declaration that the allotment in Inventory Proceedings No.957 of 1929 to Eurico ceased to be valid/effective.

6. It further appears that Ricardina, wife of Eurico, filed an applicati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 852

2006(9) Supreme 64SUPREME COURT OF INDIAS.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.Antonio S.C. Pereira - AppellantversusRicardina Noronha (D) by LRs. - RespondentCivil Appeal No. 4128 of 2006(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8304 of 2005)Decided on 14-9-2006

IMPORTANT POINTThe statutory scheme under the Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act shows that the question of title can be determined by the Civil Court and not by the administrator or the Government of Goa.

2006(9) Supreme 64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Antonio S.C. Pereira - Appellant
versus
Ricardina Noronha (D) by LRs. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4128 of 2006
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8304 of 2005)
Decided on 14-9-2006

IMPORTANT POINT
The statutory scheme under the Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act shows that the question of title can be determined by the Civil Court and not by the administrator or the Government of Goa.