1. By this appeal, the appellants-original plaintiffs are challenging the judgment and order dated 20/12/2014 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, in Regular Civil Appeal No.68/2003, thereby confirming the dismissal of the Regular Civil Suit No.31/01/III by the learned Adhoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao.

2. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the following substantial questions of law arise in the appeal :

(i) Whether the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaring the orders passed by

(ii) Whether Section 31(2) of the said Act would bar jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit, seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the Mamlatdar (or other authorities under the said Act) be declared as null and void ?

3. The parties were put to notice about the aforesaid substantial questions of law. The learned Counsel for the parties have advanced their arguments on the same. Accordingly, the appeal is being finally disposed of on merits.

4. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, may be stated thus :

That property better known as 'Novangully Dando' situated at village Varca, Taluka Salcete, District South Goa surveyed under Survey No.275/8 and more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, is the subject matter of dispute. The appellants filed the suit before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division with the allegation that the suit property belongs to the father of the plaintiff no.1 by name Lourdes D'Costa, who expired on 17/06/1965. Smt. Maria Angelica Costa, the mother of the appellant no.1, expired on 11/09/1996. Lourdes D'Costa and Maria Angelica Costa left behind two sons namely Sebastio D'Costa (respondent no.37) and Edgar D'Costa (respondent no.29) and seven daughters, including the appellant no.1. According to the appellant no.1, after the death of her parents, she became the co-sharer of the suit property. The appellant no.1 was married to appellant no.2 (since deceased) Agnelo Domingos under the regime of common enjoyment of the properties. The suit was filed by the appellant no.1 along with her husband appellant no.2 (since deceased). It was the material case that on 05/01/2001, when the appellant no.1 went to her parental house, which is situated on the western side of the suit property, the respondent no.1 started abusing her claiming that the appellant no.1 or any of her family members have no right to pass through the suit property, since they have purchased the suit property in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar. Further according to the appellants, on enquiry, it was found that the contesting respondent no.1 had moved an application for registration as mundkars in respect of the dwelling house. These proceedings were decided on 24/10/1981. Subsequently, an order for purchase of the mundkarial house was also passed on 18/08/1999. In both these proceedings, the appellant no.1 or her sisters were not made parties and the proceedings were only filed against the respondent no.37 Sebastio D'Costa and respondent no.29 Edgar D'Costa.

5. It was claimed that on 09/02/1981, Sebastio D'Costa had filed an application in the said case, bringing it to the notice of the Mamlatdar that the property is still undivided and his brother Edgar D'Costa, who was out of India, was one of the co-sharers and that all the legal representatives/ co-owners were not made parties. In short, according to the appellants, the orders passed in the proceedings by the Mamlatdar were ab-initio-void. The suit came to be filed with the following prayers :

“(a) a declaration be passed that Smt. Conceicao Divina Fernandes or the Defendant No.1 were not the mundkars of the suit property;

(b) that the order passed in Case No.JM/MUND/Varca/66/80 on 24/10/1981 by the Joint Mamlatdar of Salcete, be declared null and void;

(c) that the sanad issued in Case No.JM/I/MUND/ Purchase /29/92 on 18/08/1991 by the Deputy Collector, Margao, be declared null a