-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2011 1. Shri Shankar Babani Halarnkar major of age, 2. Smt. Shantabai (Leela) Shankar Halarnkar, major of age, Both resident of H. No. 122, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Headland Sada, Mormugao, Vasco da Gama. …... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Smt. Sharayu V. Kauthankar 2. Shri Shridhar V. Kauthankar 3. Smt. Sarita S. Kauthankar 4. Shri Ratnakar V. Kauthankar 5. Smt. Ratnamala R. Kauthankar 6. Shri Mahesh alias Prakash Kauthankar 7. Smt. Jyoti Mahesh alias Prakash Kauthankar 8. Miss Shobha V. Kauthankar All heirs of late Vithal (Vithoba) Bapu Kauthankar All residents of H. No. 122, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Headland Sada, Mormugao, Vasco da Gama. …... Respondent Mr. E. O. Mendes, Advocate with Mr. Prabhudessai, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. G. Vijaychandran , Advocate for the Respondent nos 2 to 8.. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 12 th October, 2011. -2- ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri Mendes, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri G. Vijaychandran, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 2 and 8. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgments passed by the Courts below whereby the Appellants have been directed to vacate from the suit property. 3. The suit was filed by the Respondents for possession and mesne profits till handing over the possession of the suit room. It was the case of the Respondents that the father of the original Respondent had constructed six rooms in the property granted to him by the erstwhile Government. It was further the case of the Respondents that the said father Vithoba had permitted different persons to occupy the rooms and after prolonged litigation all the rooms were vacated. But, however, according to the Respondents when the last occupant vacated the premises, she allowed the Appellants to occupy the fourth room. Despite of requests by the Respondents the Appellants failed to vacate the suit room and in the year 1999 filed an application before the Mamlatdar claiming to be Mundkars of the suit room. As such, the suit was filed for eviction. 4. The Appellants disputed the claim of the Respondents by filing the written statement. It is their case that said Vithoba had permitted the Appellant no.1 to construct one room in the said property. It is further their case that they are Mundkars of the suit premises. -3- 5. The learned Trial Judge by Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2010, partly decreed the suit and, inter alia, directed the eviction of the suit premises and payment of the mesne profits. The learned Judge held that the Appellants were trespassers occupying the suit premises. The Appeal preferred by the Appellants was partly allowed by Judgment dated 23.02.2011, whereby the Decree for eviction from the suit premises was confirmed and the Decree for mesne profit was set aside. 6. Shri Mendes, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has pointed out that according to the Appellants, though the suit property originally belonged to the Government, nevertheless considering that now the property vested in favour of the Respondents, the Appellants can be considered to be Mundkars of the dwelling house existing in the suit property. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Courts below have lost sight of this aspect and have as such come to an erroneous conclusion that the Respondents are entitled for the reliefs directing the Appellants to vacate the suit premises. The learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned Judgments and pointed out that this aspect has not been considered by the Courts below whilst disposing of the suit filed by the Respondents. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Appellate Court has also not dealt with this aspect of the matter. 7. On the other hand, Shri Vijaychandran, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 2 to 8 has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the suit premises no longer exists as the same has collapsed -4- and the Appellants admittedly are not occupying any portion of the suit premises. The learned Counsel further pointed out that this submission was not agitated before the Appellate Court as can be reflected from the impugned Judgment and as such there is no substantial question of law which arises in the present Appeal. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, I find that the point sought to be raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants does not figure in the submissions advanced before the Lower Appellate Court. As such, no substantial question of law can arise in the present Appeal on that count. Nevertheless, if the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is accepted, it would amount to a situation whereby the Civil Court would have to decide the correctness of the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The competent Authority, under the Mundkar Act, has held that the Appellants are not the Mundkars of the suit premises. The said Judgment was upheld by the Appellate Authority under the Mundkar Act, which have become final. The Orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the other authorities under the Mundkar Act, cannot be challenged in the Civil Court and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the correctness thereof. Apart from that, the Orders passed by the Mamlatdar have also been upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No. 168/2010. Hence, the claim of the Appellants that they are Mundkars of the suit premises, have been finally decided against the Appellants. It is not open to the Appellants to contend that they are Mundkars of the suit premises. The suit premises are also reported to have collapsed. Hence, I find that no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal. -5- 9. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*