1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEALS NO. 129, 130 & 193 OF 2002 FIRST APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2002 1. State of Goa, through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 3. The Conservator of Forests, Junta House, Panaji, Goa. 4. The Range Forest Officer, Range Forest Office, Quepem-Goa. ......... Appellants. V/s. 1. Communidade de Provincia de Bali, alias Camara de Provincia de Bali, through its Special Procurador, Balau,Balcusta Fali Dessai, major, r/o. Balli, Quepem, Goa. 2. The Union of India through the Home Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 3. Shri Ramdas Guno Fall Dessai, major, Forest Contractor, r/o. Khareband, Margao, Goa. ........ Respondents. 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2002 1. State of Goa, through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 3. The Conservator of Forests, Junta House, Panaji, Goa. ......... Appellants. V/s. 1. Communidade de Provincia de Bali, alias Camera, Agraria de Provincia de Bali, through its Special Procurador, Balli, Quepem, Goa. 2. The Union of India through the Home Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 3. Shri Teoflio Saude Coutinho, aged about 52 years, r/o. Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa. ........ Respondents. FIRST APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2002 1. State of Goa, through Chief Secretary, 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 3 3. The Conservator of Forests, Panaji, Junta House, Panaji, Goa. 4. The Range Forest Officer, Range Forest Office, Quepem-Goa. ......... Appellants. V/s. 1. Communidade de Provincia de Bali, alias Camara de Provincia de Bali, through its Special Procurador, (Balau,Balcusta Fali Dessai, major) deleted, Having its Office at Balli, Quepem, Goa. 2. The Union of India through the Home Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of House Affairs, New Delhi. ........ Respondents. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kakodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. Agha, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. All these appeals are being decided by a common Judgment as they involve common questions of fact and law. So also 4 evidence of all witnesses, (except the parties) was recorded in common. Regarding First Appeal No.129/2002. 2. This appeal arises out of Civil Suit No.2/1976, renumbered as Civil Suit No.135/1981 filed by the Communidade of Provincia de Bali (respondent No.1) against the Union of India, the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and others. The suit property is described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint as “PROPERTY OITERAL ATTALEVORIL MOLLA”, situated at Maina, Taluka Quepem and enrolled and registered under No.59 in the Land Revenue Office. The area of the property is not mentioned in the plaint. The plaint mentions that the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) is the owner of the suit property. The plaint then proceeds to state that four coupes forming part of the suit property were auctioned by the Union of India in the year 1975-76. The plaint states that the Union of India had no authority to auction the 4 coupes of the property as the suit property belonged to the plaintiff. The auction held by the Union of India is stated to be the accrual of the cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff then prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the Union of India from disturbing its possession. The plaint was amended on 5 15th May, 2000 and by the amendment, in the alternative, the plaintiff prayed that if it was held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit, the possession of the suit property be awarded to it. Union of India contested the suit by filing the written statement. It denied the title of the plaintiff. It contended that the suit land was a forest land belonging to the Union of India. It further contended that the suit in truth and substance was for possession and was not properly valued, as no Court fee stamp was paid for the relief of possession and the suit was not valued for the relief of possession. It also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court framed several issues, but it did not frame an issue regarding the title. Also no issue was framed regarding valuation or whether the suit was properly valued and proper court fee was paid, though specific contention regarding valuation was raised in the written statement. Regarding First Appeal No.130/2000. 3. This appeal arises out of Civil Suit No.148/1981 filed by the same plaintiff, namely Communidade de Provincia de Bali against the Union of India, Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and others. The suit property is described in paragraph 1 of the plaint to be 6 the property known as “NASSAPARNA” situated at Maina and enrolled in Land Revenue Office under No.96. Though the boundaries of the suit property have been mentioned in the plaint, its area is not mentioned. The plaint contains allegations similar to the allegations made in Civil Suit No. 2/1976 from which First Appeal No.129/02 arises, save and except that in this case the relief of possession was claimed in the suit since beginning and not by an amendment of the plaint. The Union of India and other defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. They specifically denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit property. Similar objection regarding the valuation of the suit was raised and it was contended that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of relief of possession. Regarding First Appeal No.193/2002. 4. This appeal arises out of Civil Suit No.16/1975 filed by the same plaintiff, viz. Communidade de Provincia de Bali, alias Camera, Agraria de Provincia de Bali, against the Union of India, Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and others. The suit property is described in paragraph 1 of the plaint as “SIGDEGUEDONGOR” situated at Maina, Taluka Quepem enrolled and registered in the Land 7 Revenue Office under No.82. Again the area of the property is not mentioned in the plaint. The other allegations in the plaint are similar to the allegations made in Civil Suit No.148/1981. Union of India and the Union Territory of Goa appeared and contested the suit, raising similar contentions. They specifically denied the title of the plaintiff and also challenged the valuation of the suit, contending that the suit was not properly valued for the relief of possession. 5. In all the three suits, the plaintiff examined Chandrakant Dessai, attorney of the Communidade, as PW.1. Evidence of Mr. Vicente Correia Afonso (PW.2) was recorded in common in all the three suits. Similarly, evidence on behalf of the appellant (State of Goa) was recorded in common in all the suits. However, three separate Judgments were delivered by the trial Court. 6. The first glaring defect that is noticed is regarding parties to the suits. The Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu was granted status of statehood in the year 1987 by an Act of Parliament viz. “The Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987”. The Counsel for all the parties submitted that the ownership of the suit property stood 8 transferred to the State of Goa on it becoming a State. The appeal has been accordingly filed by the State of Goa. Though the ownrship was transferred during pendency of the suits, the State of Goa was never made a party to the suits. Although the respondent (original plaintiff) contends that the decree is binding on the State of Goa, it was never made party to the suits. The decree is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 7. There are even other weighty grounds for setting aside the decree and remanding the matters to the Trial Court. In Civil Suit No.2/1976, from which First Appeal No.129/002 arises, though the Communidade has specifically claimed that it was the owner of the suit property and their title was specifically denied by the defendants, yet an issue regarding the title was not framed. This is another ground for setting aside the decree. 8. Thirdly, it appears that all the three properties described in three separate suits are part of a larger property which according to the State of Goa is a forest land. The area of the total property, according to the learned Advocate General, is about 740 hectares. Auctions held 9 were in respect of small portions of the property admeasuring few hectares. In none of the plaints, the plaintiff has given exact area of the suit property. It was obligatory of the plaintiff, under Order 7, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to give description of the property sufficient to identify it precisely. According to the State of Goa, the description given in the plaint is not sufficient to identify the suit property in any of the suits. If the suit property is a small part of the larger property, then it was not necessary to give full and proper description of the property. The boundaries given in the plaint are not precise and vague. The area of the property is not mentioned. The plan of the property is also not produced along with the plaint. With the scanty description, it is not possible to precisely identify the suit property in each of the suits. Instead of dismissing the suits on this ground alone it would be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to give full and proper description of the property, including its area and permit it to file a plan of the suit property in each of the suits. The plaintiff shall also be permitted to amend the cause title, so as to join the State of Goa as a party to the suit. 10 9. The suits, as originally filed and as amended, admittedly contain a prayer for possession of the suit properties. As such, the suits are required to be valued for the relief of possession. Valuation of the property is seriously disputed by the defendants. The issue regarding valuation of the property also ought to have been framed. If the suit is not properly valued, the Trial Court is entitled to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (Clauses (b) or (c), as the case may be) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Issue regarding title is also required to be framed. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned Judgments and Decrees cannot be sustained and are required to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Each of the matters is remanded to the Trial Court with the following directions : (a) The plaintiff in each of the suits is permitted to amend the plaint so as to give proper description of the property in conformity with Order 7, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the suits have been filed prior to the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 is not applicable and if an application for amendment of the plaint is made by the plaintiff, the Trial Court 11 shall consider and decide it on its own merits. (b) In the event, the plaintiff seeks leave to amend the valuation clause regarding value of the suits, the Trial Court shall consider such an application on its own merits and if the application is granted, shall fix a date for payment of appropriate Court fee. (c) If the plaint is amended, the defendants shall be given opportunity to file additional written statement. The Trial Court shall, thereafter, frame appropriate issues, including the issue of title and an issue regarding valuation of the suit in each of the suits. (d) Since the matters are old, the Trial Court is directed to decide the suits expeditiously and in any event, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of order of this Court. D.G. KARNIK, J. ssm.