MICHAEL MASCARENHAS Vs. VASANTI WALKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Balkrishna Sardessai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Amey Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 01.11.2019, by which the learned Civil Judge has dismissed Petitioner's application for framing of an additional issue in terms of Order 14 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) Mr. Sardessai, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that no sanad or purchase certificate and/or registration could have been issued to the defendants in the absence of any declaration that the defendants were indeed the Mundkars in respect of the suit house. He submits that the sanad is therefore a nullity and the issue as to whether the defendants are Mundkars, in the absence of any declaration under Section 8-A of the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars Act, arises in this matter. He submits that the learned Civil Judge was therefore not right in dismissing the Petitioner's application for framing of such additional issue. Mr. Sardessai submits that the issue as to whether the defendants are indeed the Mundkars of the suit house or not, could not have been directly or indirectly decided by the Civil Court, in view of the bar of jurisdiction provided under the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars Act. For all these reasons, he submits that the impugned order warrants interference.