Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
Manish Pitale, J.
Meghashyam Ramchandra Naik & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Mahendra Purushottam Naik Gaunekar & Ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 81 of 2019
Decided On : 25-10-2021
Mundkar Act - Property Rights - The court addressed substantial questions of law regarding the inheritance of Mundkarial rights, the legality of a transfer deed, and the framing of proper points for determination under the CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were brought on record as legal heirs and successors in a purchase proceeding. The court analyzed the requirement for the appellants to initiate proceedings under the Mundkar Act and the legality of a transfer deed. The court also considered the failure of the Appellate Court to frame proper points for determination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Appellants were required to initiate proceedings under the Mundkar Act for seeking declaration of having inherited Mundkarial rights. The transfer deed was deemed illegal, null, and void under section 3 of the Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act 1975. The failure of the Appellate Court to frame proper points for determination was also noted.
Issues: Inheritance of Mundkarial rights, legality of transfer deed, failure to frame proper points for determination
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Mundkar Act and the legal requirements for inheritance of Mundkarial rights. The court also considered the provisions of the Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act 1975 in declaring the transfer deed as illegal.
Final Decision: The court held that the Appellants were required to initiate proceedings under the Mundkar Act for seeking declaration of having inherited Mundkarial rights. The transfer deed was declared illegal, null, and void. The failure of the Appellate Court to frame proper points for determination was noted, potentially vitiating the Judgement and Decree.
JUDGMENT
Manish Pitale, J . - Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. A. Nachinolkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. V. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law:-
a. Whether when the Appellants were brought on record before the Court of the Mamlatdar in the purchase proceedings bearing case No. Mam/Mun/Pur-Ban/1-98 in respect of the dwelling house bearing House No.E 48, situated in property bearing survey no.21/2 of village Bandora, in the capacity of they being the legal heirs and successors of Malkumi Anu Naik, the Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court were right in holding that the Appellants were required to initiate proceedings under the Mundkar Act for seeking declaration of having inherited Mundkarial rights?
b. Whether the Transfer deed dated 30/11/2003 at Exh. - C/78, executed by the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the Respondent no. 3, thereby transferring the dwelling house bearing House No. E 48 in favour of the Respondent No.3, is illegal, null and void being hit by section 3 of the Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act 1975?
c. Whether the Appellate Court has failed to frame proper points for determination in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC, thereby failing to address questions as raised in Regular Civil Appeal No. 93/2017, consequently vitiating the Judgement and Decree dated 25/04/2018 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 93/2017 ?
3. Mr. A. Nachinolkar, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. V. Amonkar, leaned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
