-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 305 OF 2011 1. Mr. Mahadev Parsekar, ( Since expired ) through his legal heirs :- 1a) Mr. Pritam Mahadev Parsekar, aged 49 years, 1b) Mrs. Pratim Pritam Parsekar, aged 44 years, 1c) Mrs. Manjiri Mahesh Parsekar, aged 31 years, 1d) Mr. Sunny, major, son of Mrs. Ramila Parsekar, student, aged 21 years, 1e) Smt. Meena Mahadev Parsekar, major, daughter of Mahadev Parsekar, aged 41 years, All residents of Shimepaine, Veling, P.O. Mardol, Ponda Goa. 2. Mrs. Champa M. Parsekar, service, major in age, aged 69 years, 3. Mrs. Ramila Mahadev Parsekar, widow, daughter of petitioner no.1, major in age, aged about 45 years, 4. Mr. Mahesh Mahadev Parsekar, married, service, major in age, aged 40 years. All resident of Shimepain, Veling, Mardol, Ponda Goa. … Petitioners V e r s u s 1. Eduardo Simao D'Costa @ Edward S. D'Costa, major of age, married, service, agriculturist, and his wife, 2. Mrs. Priscila D'Costa, Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -2- major of age, Both residing at Shimepain, Veling, Mardol, Ponda Goa. … Respondents Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sudha Pai Kir, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Sudin M. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 20 th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Writ Petition challenges the Order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Ponda in Regular Civil Suit No. 53/2008/B and the Judgment dated 26.04.2011, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, at Panaji, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46/2010. By the impugned Orders, the application for temporary injunction filed by the Respondents was allowed and the Petitioner was, inter alia, restrained from interfering, encroaching, trespassing, demolishing the compound wall or re-fixing the boundary poles or any other boundary wall on the northern boundary of the suit property or dumping any mud or other extracts from the digging being carried out by the Petitioner beyond the northern boundary of the suit property or from doing any other work or act whatsoever in nature in the suit property. Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -3- 3. The Respondents filed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that they were tenants of the property surveyed under no. 91/0 belonging to Ramnath Zingde, admeasuring 1000 square metres which portion is located between the house of the Petitioner on one side and the house of Shalini Mardolkar on the other side and the said portion is surrounded partly by loose stone wall and partly by live plant fence. It is further their case that they also have a shed in the said portion of the property bearing no. 235/1 and the portion is a distinct unit bounded on all three sides by the property of the said landlord. It is further their case that the suit property was developed by the father of the Respondents with the consent of his landlord. It is also contended that the hut beairng no. 235/1 was old and on the point of collapse and, as such, after obtaining due permission from the Village Panchayat, the repairs to the said structure were carried out by the Respondents. The Respondents have also mentioned about the proceedings which were initiated against him in respect of the said structure by the landlord which came to be thereafter withdrawn by the said landlord. The Respondents also brought on record the fact that there were suits initiated by him to protect the property including a suit filed in the year 2006 against Indu Vinu Naik, wherein an application for temporary injunction to restrain the said party from interfering in the said property came to be granted by Order dated 28.11.2007. It is further the case of the Respondents that he had purchased the suit property by paying a total sum of Rs.13,500/- by instalments and in support of the said payment and the said Agreement, a document was produced which is dated 19.09.1985. It is further the case of the Respondents that the Petitioners have openly challenged the Respondents and the other family members not to interfere in the entire property as the same belongs to Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -4- them. Accordingly, the Respondents have filed the suit praying inter alia for an injunction against the Respondents and for a temporary injunction in the manner as stated above. 4. The Petitioner filed his written statement denying the claim put forward by the Respondents. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents have come with unclean hands and they have not disclosed the fact that an application was filed before the learned Mamlatdar of Ponda which was still pending at the time of the filing of the suit. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner no.1 is carrying leather business since the last more than 45 years and that the Petitioner and his wife started residing in the property bearing survey no. 91/0 with the consent of the owner in the house which is presently bearing no. 354 along with a rump house admeasuring 32.5 metres towards the southern side of the suit house. It is further their case that the suit plot towards the road is at the height of about 49 metres towards the north and south and it is at a height of three metres for the first 14 metres. It is further their case that the Respondents have planted a number of trees in the suit property including coconut trees, mango trees, etc. According to the Petitioner, they are also doing vegetable cultivation during the monsoon seasons in the said plot of land by putting maneur therein. The Petitioners also claim that they are the Mundkars of the suit house bearing no. 354 of the said property which belongs to the same owner. For the reasons stated in the written statement, the Petitioners claimed that they were in possession of the suit plot and prayed that the application for temporary injunction deserves to be rejected. Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -5- 5. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panaji, by Order dated 10.02.2010, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the Respondents had prima facie established their case as well as the other requirements of law and, as such, granted the temporary injunction as prayed for by the Respondents. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioners preferred an Appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, which by Judgment dated 26.04.2011, came to be rejected. 6. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner has preferred the present Appeal. 7. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has assailed the impugned Order and essentially pointed out that the Petitioner is in possession of the suit property and, as such, the question of granting any injunction would not arise at all as it would amount to the dispossession of the Respondents of the suit plot. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Respondents have come with unclean hands by not disclosing the fact that an application for injunction was pending before the learned Mamlatdar in respect of the same property against the Petitioners and the landlord. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the conduct of the Respondents claiming that he is a tenant of the suit property before the learned Mamlatdar and thereafter taking a contrary stand before the Civil Court itself disentitles the Respondents from any equity relief of temporary injunction. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -6- out that in the suit plot, the Petitioners have a W.C. besides a garage and a shed where commercial activities are being carried out by the Petitioners which would severely affect the rights of the Petitioners over the suit plot and result in his dispossession of the suit area. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that the only way available to go to the suit plot from the main road is the one which leads to the residential house of the Petitioner bearing no. 354 and, as such, this itself established that the Respondents are not in possession of the suit plot as by no stretch of imagination would the Petitioner permit the Respondents to use the way constructed by them leading to their dwelling house. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Petitioners are in possession of an area of 2090 square metres including the dwelling house to which the Petitioners are entitled in law to enjoy and possess the said area which includes the suit plot. Learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the Judgments of the Courts below as well as the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced by the respective parties and submitted that both the Courts below have acted with material irregularity by granting the application for temporary injunction filed by the Respondents which calls for interference by this Court. 8. On the other hand, Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has supported the impugned Order and pointed out that both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record, have come to the conclusion that the Respondents were in possession of the suit property. The learned Counsel further pointed out that along with the plaint, a sketch has been produced clearly specifying the area of the suit plot claimed by the Respondents. Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -7- Learned Counsel further points out that the plantation existing in the suit plot has been planted by the Respondents and not by the Petitioner. Learned Counsel further points out that it was not the case of the Petitioners in the pleadings that any of the structures including the W.C. and a garage or any commercial activities were existing in the suit plot. Learned Counsel further points out that there is no structure occupied by the Petitioner existing in the suit plot and as the only shed existing therein is being occupied by the Respondents and that the permission from the Panchayat as well as other authorities were obtained for its reconstruction by the Respondents. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Orders and pointed out that there is no reason to interfere therein. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that the Respondents have also produced the receipts of the payment of the consideration to the landlord which clearly demonstrates that the property has been sold to the Respondents. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the records, I find that the grievance of the Petitioner is essentially that he is in possession of the suit plot. It is well settled that the question of possession is a question of fact. Such aspects are to be considered on the basis of appreciating the evidence on record. Both the Courts below after minutely examining the records produced by both the parties, have come to the prima facie conclusion that the Respondents are in possession of the suit plot. Whilst arriving at such findings, the learned Trial Judge has considered the fact that the Respondents have been filing proceedings before the Court to protect their possession from time to time. The learned Judge has also considered the fact that the owner had filed a suit Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -8- bearing no. 30/1992 against the Respondents with regard to the suit plot wherein the Respondents have consistently raised the same pleadings as in the present suit. It is no in dispute that the land owner thereafter had withdrawn the suit filed against the Respondents. Apart from that, the material on record produced by the Respondents further demonstrates that a shed which is existing in the suit plot was reconstructed/repaired by the Respondents after obtaining requisite permission from the authorities somewhere in the year 1992. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel Shri Lotlikar to the effect that there is a garage and/or the W.C. of the Petitioner in the suit plot, cannot be accepted. On perusal of the written statement and on pleadings of the Petitioners, nothing to this effect has been pleaded by the Petitioner. Besides that, the Petitioner during the course of the arguments, have produced some photographs depicting the suit property. On perusal of the said photographs, I find no garage or W.C. in the suit plot. Apart from that, Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, upon instruction, points out that no such W.C. or garage is existing in the suit plot. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel to the effect that there is a structure where commercial activity is being carried out by the Petitioner, is also not borne out from the records. In fact, the photographs produced on record only disclose a structure which appears to be in dilapidated condition when, prima facie, it cannot be said that commercial activities can be carried out. The licence produced by the Respondents clearly stipulate that the Respondents sought permission to repair house no. 235/1 which is situated in the property surveyed under no. 91/0 in the year 1992. All these documents would show that the findings of the Court below cannot be faulted. Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -9- 10. Dealing with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the Petitioner has carried out some plantation in the suit property, I find that the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record, have come to the conclusion that prima facie the said aspect has not been established. Dealing with the apprehension of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Respondents may change the nature of the property or alienate the property during the pendency of the suit, Shri Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, upon instructions, stated that the Respondents shall not create any third party right or change the nature of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The statement of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents is accepted. As such, the apprehension of the learned Senior Counsel to that effect does not survive. 11. It is well settled that the Orders passed on the application for temporary injunction are within the discussion of the learned trial Judge. This Court in a Judgment reported in 2005 (3) Mah.L.J. 387, in the case of Deshmukh & Co. (Publishers) Pvt. Ltd. & ors. vs. Avinash Vishnu Khandekar & ors., has held at para 78 thus : “78. While considering the appeal against order, another question which needs to be addressed is: What is the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court while considering the appeal against the order of injunction. In dealing with the matter raised before it at the appellate stage, the Appellate Court would normally not Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -10- be justified in interfering with the discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it may have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the Appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial Court's exercise of discretion. If it appears to the Appellate Court that in exercising its discretion the trial Court has acted unreasonably or capriciously or has ignored relevant facts, then it would be open to the Appellate Court to interfere with the trial Court's exercise of discretion. In this behalf, it would be profitable to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of (Wander Ltd. and anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd.)19, 1990(Supp) S.C.C. 727, as follows: “The Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant of refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the Court below solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -11- trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the Appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial Court's exercise of discretion.” Keeping the aforesaid parameters of the appellate jurisdiction in mind, and after examining the order impugned, I have no hesitation to record a finding that the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court reasonably and in judicial manner. The view taken by me while considering and deciding the appeal is in consonance with the view taken by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, there is absolutely no case made out by the appellant to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court refusing to grant injunction. In these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff-appellant was and is not entitled to claim interim relief of injunction pursuant to prayers in Suit No.1 of 2001. The Appeal from Order thus fails.” 12. As such, keeping the parameters of the jurisdiction of the Courts below in dealing with the application for temporary injunction in mind, I find that the Courts below have considered the matter within the well settled principles of law whilst passing the impugned Orders. 13. Apart from that, it is also to be noted that the Petitioners have not established any right of ownership over the suit property. The claim of the Petitioners is that they are the Mundkars of the land belonging to the owner. Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -12- Admittedly, the said house is located much beyond that suit plot. The Petitioners have also not produced any declaration of such Mundkarship nor the area of their dwelling house has been determined by the competent authorities. As such, prima facie, the claim of the Petitioners that they are in occupation of an area of 2090 square metres including the suit plot being the area of their dwelling house as Mundkars, cannot be accepted. The Petitioners have also not produced any documents from the owner to substantiate their contention prima facie that they had been permitted to carry out activities in the suit plot with the consent of the owner. 14. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2008 (4) S.C.C. 451 in the case of B. K. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. has held at para 22 thus:- “22. It is settled law that a writ of certiorari can only be issued in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals or authorities in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal or authority, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal/authority has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit an admissible evidence, or if Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -13- the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. It is needless to mention that a pure error of fact, however grave, cannot be corrected by a writ.” 15. Taking note of the well settled principles laid down by the Apex Court in the said Judgment in the case of B. K. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra), I find that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Courts below in granting the application for temporary injunction in favour of the Respondents. The Courts below have considered all the material on record and have come to the prima facie finding in favour of the Respondents. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Lotlikar was unable to point out any piece of evidence which was not considered by the Courts below which would disclose that the Respondents are not entitled for temporary injunction. Merely because an application for injunction was filed before the learned Mamlatdar by itself does not disentitle the Respondents to file the suit and seek for temporary injunction when it is not the case of the Petitioners that they are the landlords of the suit plot. Admittedly, in the rejoinder filed by the Respondents, they have stated that the application was filed on the basis of a wrong advise of their Advocate. 16. In any event, the learned Senior Counsel did not dispute the fact that the Respondents were entitled to maintain the Civil Suit against the Petitioners for injunction on the basis of the pleadings of the Respondents in the plaint which facts are otherwise disputed by the Petitioner. As such, it cannot be said, prima facie, that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to decide the suit as filed by the Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -14- Respondents. Needless to say, the findings arrived at by the Courts are only prima facie findings which will not in any way influence the learned trial Judge while deciding the suit on merits. With regard to the apprehension of the learned Senior Counsel to the effect that the Respondents will use the way leading to the house built by the Petitioner going to their dwelling house, Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, on instructions, states that the Respondents have no intention to use the said way and, according to him, the said way existing at the site is not leading in the suit plot. The said statement is accepted. 17. Considering the rival contentions, I find, in the interest of justice, that the suit filed by the Respondents be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and, as such, the learned Trial Judge is directed to decide the suit filed by the Respondents as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 31.12.2012 in accordance with law. 18. Subject to the above, I find no merit in the above Petition, which stands dismissed. 19. At this stage, Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel seeks stay of the Order passed today for a period of eight weeks as, according to him, the stay of the impugned Order passed by the Courts below was in operation upto this date. Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has opposed to the said prayer of the Petitioner. Considering that the interim Order staying the Order Writ Petition No. 305/2011 -15- passed by the Courts below was in force during the pendency of the above Petition, the Order passed today is stayed for a period of eight weeks. F .M. REIS, J. arp/* Writ Petition No. 305/2011