HENIRIQUETA DSOUZA Vs. MANGESH D. MISHAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) The controversy involved in this petition has witnessed quite a tumultuous journey. The matter has been travelling from one forum to another forum and then to the High Court and once again back to the original forum or the revisional forum or the appellate forum. At the centre of the controversy is a question - whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as a mundkar in view of Section 3 of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short) or in view of definitions contained in Section 2(p) and Section 2(n) of the Act. So far as Section 3 is concerned, the controversy has been set at rest by the judgment delivered on 18/12/2013 in W.P. Nos. 457/2010 and 266/2008, when the issue was referred to it by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench has taken a certain view with regard to heritability of right of mundkar by a person under Section 3 and the section has been read down to include some conditions with the aid of Section 2(n) of the Act and also the objects of the Act.