ELMANO MENINNO DIAS Vs. ARCHBISHOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel on both sides. Rule, returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the Counsel.

(2.) This appeal challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, B Court, at Mapusa, Goa whereby the learned trial Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The appellant-plaintiff had filed suit seeking declaration that the appointment of the defendant No. 4 at the inception (since 9.9.04) was bad in law, illegal and unauthorised as also its continuance; that the defendant No. 4 be directed to hand over all the assets, accounts, money, etc., illegally usurped and taken over by them in the year 1974 unto Socorro Confraria and for injunction restraining them from functioning and usurping any domain, collecting rents or activities originally belonging to the Confraria and taking major policy decisions.