The main legal point established in the judgment is that a fresh suit for the same relief, which was already granted in an earlier decree, is barred by law under Section 47 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

Bharat P. Deshpande, J. - By way of present revision application, the original defendants are challenging the impugned order dated 18.11.2017 in Regular Civil Suit No.46/2016 by which an application at Exhibit 9 filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned counsel who appears along with Mr Rui Gomes Pereira, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr Rohit Bras De Sa who appears along with Mr. Pushkar Navti and Mr Prataprao Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.1(b).

3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the entire paper-book and more specifically, the pleadings in the plaint.

4. In a nutshell, respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants. It is their contention that there is a property in Village Chorao bearing Survey No.4/24 admeasuring 725sq.mts and known as SAUD, which comprises of a residential house bearing No.491 and a well. The property is hereinafter called as 'suit property'.

5. The suit property was originally owned by late Maria Vaz e Sousa, mother of late Arnaldo David Vaz e Sousa, mother-in-law of plaintiff no.1(a) and grandmother of plaintiff no.1(b). Said Maria Vaz e Sousa was residing in the suit house alongwith her sister Esilda Vaz. The mother of defendant no.1 Pascoal Vaz was engaged as a servant by said Maria Vaz e Sousa basically to look after cleanliness/sweeping of the suit house, to cook food for them, etc. The said mother of defendant no,1 was being paid for her services. Apart from this, the mother of defendant no.1 was allowed to occupy a single room at the rear side of the house wherein she was residing alongwith her husband and defendant no.1. The said Maria Vaz expired in the year 1954 and then her sister Esilda continued to reside in the house till her death. She expired in the year 1966. Thereafter, no family member stayed in the suit house. The plaintiff no.1 Arnaldo locked all the rooms of the suit house except the rear room wherein the mother of defendant no.1 used to sleep and defendant no.1 Pascoal Vaz was appointed as caretaker to take care of the suit house and allowed him to occupy the said room. Plaintiff then claimed that the suit house along with the suit property is always in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. However, conflict arose between plaintiff no.1 Arnaldo and defendant no.1 as defendant no.1 Pascoal started claiming occupancy in the suit house. Accordingly, Arnaldo David Vaz/plaintiff no.1 filed a suit against Pascoal Vaz and others in the Court of the Tribunal Judicial Da Comarca Das Ilhas which was registered as suit no.4/1966. This suit was disposed of by passing consent decree on 16.12.1966. In terms of such decree defendant no.1 Pascoal and his wife Maria Piedade Vaz were allowed to occupy only one compartment in the suit house at the rear side for a period of 2 years from the date of which the Compromise Terms were filed and accepted by the Court. Beyond such period of 2 years, said Pascoal and his wife were required to obtain fresh permission/authorisation from plaintiff no.1 to continue to reside in the said compartment.

6. Plaint further disclosed that Pascoal Vaz and his wife Maria Piedade Vaz, i.e. defendants filed application under Section 8A of the Mundkars Act, seeking a declaration as Mundkars in respect of the suit house, in the year 1998. The Joint Mamlatdar vide order dated 27.11.2006 dismissed the claim of Mundkarship filed by the defendants. Appeal was filed before the Deputy Collector/SDO in the year 2007. Vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2007, such appeal was dismissed thereby confirming the order of Mamlatdar. Defendants then preferred a revision before the Administrative Tribunal at Panaji Goa bearing Mundkar Revision Application No.35/2007. Vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2012 said revision was dismissed.

Said order became final as no challenge