MANISHA RAVINDRA GADEKAR Vs. SHRIKRISHNA DEVU GADEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

(2.) THIS is a petition seeking writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 1. 3. 2007 passed by the learned civil Judge, S. D, B Court, Mapusa in Execution Application no. 50/2003/d/c moved under Order XXI Rule 97, 101 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner being sceptical about the maintainability of this writ petition, has also preferred an application, being M. C. A. No. 453/2009 for conversion of this writ petition into an appeal.

(3.) CONTROVERSY arises over the right, title, interest and consequent possession of the portion of first floor, particularly northern portion consists of dining room, two bed rooms, kitchen, gallery admeasuring 51 sq. metres, of the house bearing No. 30/a/13 standing on landed property bearing Chalta No. 49, P. T. Sheet No. 175 at Grand Morod, mapusa, Goa. It all began with the institution of a Special civil Suit No. 70/1993/a later on numbered as R. C. S. No. 268/2000/d for specific performance of an agreement with consequential reliefs by the respondent No. 3 Ravindra devu Gadekar herein, the husband of the petitioner- Manisha against his brother Mr. Shrikrishna Devu Gadekar and his sister-in-law Mrs. Radha Shrikrishna Gadekar, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein respectively. The respondent no. 3 sought specific performance of oral agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the said first floor premises. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the claim of the respondent no. 3/ plaintiff with the written statement and further made a counterclaim seeking declaration of ownership in respect of entire house property along with land and possession of the said first floor premises particularly its northern portion. Consequential relief of injunction prohibiting any interference in their proprietory rights in respect of the said house property was also sought by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the said suit as and by way of her counterclaim. The respondent Nos. 3's suit was dismissed, and judgment and decree allowing the counterclaim made by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 came to be passed in December, 2002.