1 AO 12 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PANAJI

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 12 OF 2020

Mr. Gurudas Madhuram Gadkar,

S/o Madhuram D. Gadkar,

46 years of are, married,

Service, Indian National,

Resident of H. No.66/B,

Salvador-do-Mundo,

Paithon, Bardez, Goa.

…... Appellant

(Ori. Defendant No.4)

V e r s u s

1. Mr. Dashrath Shabi alias

Shanu Chodankar,

S/o late Shabi alias Shanu

Chodankar, 51 years of age, married,

Agriculturist, Indian National

2. Mr. Dilip Shabi alias

Shanu Chodankar

S/o late Shabi alias

Shanu Chodankar, 55 years

Of age, married, Agriculturist,

Indian National;

Both of the above are residents

of H. No. 13, Varanawada,

Morjim, Pernem- Goa

and 2 others.

….... Respondents

(Ori. Plaintiff nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Shivan Desai, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. T. Sequeira, Advocate for the Respondent nos.1 and 2.

Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondent nos. 3 and 4.

CORAM: DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

Date: 17th March 2021.

ORDER:

“This case has a checkered history”; “it is a curious case with peculiar

facts”—these are the expressions we usually employ whenever we find an

oddity in a case. Overuse has robbed these expressions of their vigour and

vitality. But here is a case to which, I think, either expression applies—

aptly.

2. First, let me introduce the parties. This Appeal From Order arises

from Civil Suit No.42 of 2016 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at

Mapusa. Respondents 1 and 2 here filed it. In the suit, respondent nos.3 and

4 are the 1^st and 2^nd defendants; the erstwhile Power of Attorney holder is

the third defendant; and the appellant here is the fourth defendant.

2 AO 12 2021

3. Now, let me begin at the beginning. Respondent nos.1 and 2 claim

they are statutory tenants. So, invoking the principle of deemed vesting,

they filed JM-1/TNC/29/92 (tenancy proceedings) before the Mamlatdar

for a declaration of their deemed ownership under the Goa Agricultural

Tenancy Act, 1964. That was in 1992, and that application has still been

pending. I will refer to the parties by their role in the litigation rather than

by their procedural labels such as petitioner, respondent. And that reference

is without prejudice to their rights and contentions, though.

4. Initially, in 1992, the tenants secured an ex parte injunction from

the Mamlatdar against the owners. That injunction continued to operate

and eventually made absolute in April 1997. Aggrieved, the owners filed

Appeal No.30/1997 before the Deputy Collector. But through an order

dated 17/11/1998, the appellate authority dismissed the owners’ appeal.

5. Meanwhile, the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act underwent an

amendment. As a result, the Tenancy proceedings pending before the

Mamlatdar were transferred to the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pernem.

The case, therefore, was renumbered as TNC No.68/2015. Pending those

tenancy proceedings, on 18^th June 2014, the owners sold a part of the

property to the appellant, the purchaser.

6. The purchaser seems to have got the revenue records mutated; in

November 2014, he secured a separate survey number. When he wanted to

assert his rights as a purchaser and enjoy the property, the tenants invoked

section 8-A of the Tenancy Act. They wanted the trial Court to injunct the

purchaser from trespassing on the property or interfering with their

enjoyment. The trial Court, however, through an order dated 1/8/2016,

dismissed that application.

7. The trial Court has assigned two reasons: (i) Though the cause of

action arose in June 2015, the tenants chose to apply for interim injunction

one year later: in June 2016. Thus, the injunction application is belated and

suffers from laches. (ii) As the tenants have already f