IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 534 OF 2007 SHRI. HUSSAIN HASSAN SHAH AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus SHRI. ABDULLA SHAH ISMAIL SHAH AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr.S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for the appellants. Coram:- S.A. BOBDE & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 10th June, 2008 P.C. 1. This Letter Patent Appeal is preferred against the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 534 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008 by which the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. 2. In fact, by now, there are concurrent findings of 3 Courts below and an approval thereof by learned Single Judge of this Court, that the appellants are caretakers of the house in question and not Mundkars as claimed by them. 3. The respondents have sued for a declaration of title in respect of the suit property claiming that they have no right, title and interest in the property. The appellants raised a plea of Mundkarship which was framed and referred to Mamlatdar of Satari Taluka. The Mamlatdar rejected the claim of the appellants and they were not declared Mundkar in respect of the suit house. This finding has been upheld by the Additional Collector and the Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, the Single Judge has declined to interfere with the findings. 4. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding that the appellants are not Mundkar and are caretakers, is vitiated by perversity. We have seen the orders of the Court below and in particular we find that the order of Administrative Tribunal, Goa is a well considered order which carefully deals with the question. The Tribunal has observed that the documentary and oral evidence in the case does not establish a Mundkar-Bhatkar relationship and their occupation in the suit dwelling house is as caretakers. In fact none of the appellants' witness showed any knowledge of the ownership of the house and witness No.4, when asked a question whether they were caretakers, answered that he does not know. The Tribunal has on the appreciation of the evidence come to the conclusion that there is no specific denial that the appellants are caretakers of the house and has denied that claim. There is no doubt as contended by Mr. Lotlikar that the appellants were staying in the house with the consent of the respondents as contemplated by the explanation to Section 2p of the Goa Mundkar Act. However, it is not sufficient to establish the residence in the property with the consent. The definition clearly excludes vide Section 2p(iv) a person residing as caretakers from the definition of a Mundkar. 5. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the Letter Patent Appeal which is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. SMA