1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, AT GOA. SECOND APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2009 Mrs. Iria Maria Dos Milagres, Ermilinda Ditoso D'Costa, Alias Iria Rodrigues, Residing at House No.183/S, Altinho, Mapusa Goa. ... Appellant V e r s u s 1. Mr. Uttam Krishna Linguitkar, Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 2. Smt. Sundari Uttam Linguitkar Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 3. Smt. Rukmini Linguitkar, (expired) Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 3a. Anand Linguitkar ( Son) Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 3b. Mrs. Alisha Anand Linguitkar, Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 4. Mr. Anand Pandurang Linguitkar, Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 5. Mr. Narayan Krishna Linguitkar, Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 2 6. Smt. Laximi Linguitkar, Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 7. Mr. Kashiram Krishna Linguitkar, Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 8. Smt. Shitto Linguitkar, Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 9. Mr. Nonul Krishna Linguitkar, (expired) Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 9a) Mrs Draupati Linguitkar (wife) Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. b) Mr. Mithun Linguitkar (Son) Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 10.Smt. Vijaya Linguitkar, Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. 11. Mr. Gurudas Krishna Linguitkar, Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez Goa. ... Respondents Mr. Joseph Vaz, Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. Dated: 26th November, 2009. 3 ORAL ORDER : 1. This Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 25.4.2008 passed by the learned District Judge-2 at Panaji Goa, dismissing the Appeal filed by the Appellant whereby the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the Appellant who is the original plaintiff came to be confirmed. 2. The Appellant herein is the original Plaintiff who had filed a suit for declaration that the order of the Mamlatdar dated 25.6.1982 declaring the Respondent as a mundkar was null and void and is obtained by fraud. The Plaintiff had also sought for a mandatory and permanent injunction against the Respondent from encroaching upon the property of the Plaintiff. The Defendants filed written statement in the said suit and denied the case of the Plaintiff. The case of the Defendants in the said written statement was that their predecessor Krishna Lingutkar was registered as a mundkar by the Mamlatdar by the order dated 25.6.1982. It was further averred in the said written statement that the application for purchase of dwelling house was also decided in favour of the 4 Defendant Nos.1 and 2 who claimed through the said Krishna Lingutkar and therefore joining of the said Defendants in the said suit was unwarranted. It was further averred that looking to the prayer sought namely to declare the order passed by the Mamlatdar as null and void, the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction. 3. The suit proceeded for trial, however, in so far as the Defendants are concerned, the suit was proceeded ex-parte as they did not appear at the Trial. The Plaintiff sought to rely upon the report of a surveyor showing the lay out of the area in question in which lay out according to the Plaintiff the structure was depicted from which the alleged encroachment made by the Defendants could be gathered. 4. The Trial Court on the consideration of the evidence that was adduced by the Plaintiff came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had failed to identify the property and therefore the injunction sought for by the Plaintiff could not be granted. The Trial Court observed that in so far as the relief regarding the order of the Mamlatdar is concerned, the same could not be granted by 5 the Civil Court and accordingly dismissed the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed by her, the Plaintiff filed an Appeal in the District Court, the District Court reaffirmed the findings of the Trial Court and observed that the Plaintiff did not mention as to which of the Defendants have carried out encroachment as the pleadings in that behalf are vague. The first Appellate Court observed that the survey No.614/6 is occupied by the Defendant Nos.7 and 9 and that Defendant Nos.3 to 6, 9 and 12 are residing in the house situated in survey No.614/7 and in the absence of specific pleadings as to which of the Defendants had encroached, the first Appellate Court observed that the findings of the Trial Court could not be faulted with. In so far as the issue of the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 25.6.1982 is concerned, the first Appellate Court held that the suit filed in the year 1996 to declare the said order of the Mamlatdar null and void was hopelessly time barred. It was further observed by the first Appellate Court that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to sit in appeal against the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The Appeal was accordingly dismissed. 6 6. Both the Courts below have concurrently held against the Plaintiff on the aforesaid two issues. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and having perused the grounds of Appeal, in my view no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. at*