-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 156 OF 2011 1. Mr. Dasharath Shanu Betkekar, major of age, resident of Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa. 2. Mrs. Sunita Pandurang Betkekar, widow of Pandurang Shanu Betkekar, major of age, resident of Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa. 3. Mrs. Janki Ramchandra Betkekar, widow of Ramchandra Shanu Betkekar, major of age, resident of Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa. 4. Mrs. Radhabai Krishnanath Betkekar, major of age, resident of Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa. …... Petitioners/ Orig. Defs. No. 1 to 4 V e r s u s 1. Mr. Ajit Shantaram Malkarnekar alias Malkerneker alias Malkernekar, age about 61 years, son of Shantaram Malkernekar, married, businessman, Indian National, residing at House No. E-117, Campal, Panaji, Goa. Represented by his duly constituted Attorney Mr. Narhar Ganashyam Thakur, age about 49 years, married, businessman, Indian National, resident of A1-top Co-operative Housing Society, Montepio Road, Altinho, Panaji (Goa) by virtue of the Special Power of Attorney dated 04/07/2009 executed before the Notary Rajendra Naik of Sanguem/ Quepem/Ponda and registered in his Office under no. 5565/2009. …... Respondent/ Orig. Plaintiff 2. Mr. Ramdas Krishnanath Betkekar, son of Krishnanath Betkekar, major of age, resident of Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa. -2- 3. Mr. Gharo Krishnanath Betkekar, son of Krishnanath Betkekar, major of age, r/o. Devgi Wado, Chorao, Ilhas, Goa. …... Respondent/ Orig. Defs. No.5 & 6 Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Pai Kir, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 24 th November, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Writ Petition challenges the Order passed by the Lower Appellate Court whereby the Appeal preferred by the Respondent was partly allowed and the Petitioners were restrained by a temporary injunction from interfering with the suit property as well as from carrying out any construction activity beyond the mundkarial house. The Petitioners are only mundkars residing in the suit property. Consequently, the Petitioners at the most are entitled to the rights as reserved for them under the Mundkar Act. As mundkars, the Petitioners are not entitled to interfere with the remaining property of the Respondents nor carry out any construction beyond the plinth of the dwelling house. 3. Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has pointed out that considering the nature of the relief granted by the Lower Appellate -3- Court, the Petitioners would be even prevented from the ingress and egress to the dwelling house in the suit property. 4. On the other hand, Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has stated that it has always been his case that the ingress and egress of the Petitioners would not be disturbed despite of the injunction granted by the Lower Appellate Court. Learned Senior counsel has further pointed out that it may be clarified that the injunction granted by the Court shall not in any way effect the ingress and egress of the Petitioners to go to the main road from the existing mundkarial dwelling house occupied by the Petitioners. Hence, the injunction granted by the Lower Appellate Court shall be subject to the said statement of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents Shri Lotlikar, which is accepted. 5. Subject to the above clarification, no interference is called for in the impugned Order and hence the above Petition stands dismissed. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*