Dismissed

Anant Vaman Parab., v. Shri. Devi Bhumika Vetal Devastan Palyem Pernem, Rep. by Its President Sadashiv v Parab and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2017SA/111/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed the second appeal in a dispute regarding temple management and the right to perform pooja. The court rejected the appellant's claim based on an earlier compromise, upholding the right of a third party gained in 1988.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed.

What the court decided

Anant Vaman Parab., Vs Shri. Devi Bhumika Vetal Devastan Palyem Pernem, Rep. by Its President Sadashiv v. Parab and 4 Ors. — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 SA111-17dt 10-11-17

¶2

Amrut

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.111 OF 2017

¶5

Anant Vaman Parab ….. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Devi Bhumika Vetal Devastan & Anr. …... Respondents

¶8

Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶9

Coram : N.M. Jamdar, J.

¶10

Date : 10 November 2017.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The Appellant has challenged the concurrent judgments and orders passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Pernem and the learned District Judge, Mapusa, dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the Appellant.

¶13

The suit was instituted by the Appellant to restrain

¶14

2 SA111-17dt 10-11-17

¶15

Defendant No.3 from performing the pooja at the temple known as “Shri Devi Bhumika Vetal Devastan” which is being managed by Respondent No.1- Devastan.

¶16

It is the case of the Appellant that Defendant No.3 had no right to perform the pooja and he was doing so in violation of the compromise entered into before this Court in Civil Revision Application No.2/1993 on 28 January 1993. Both the Courts have not accepted the case of the Appellant.

¶17

Sole contention advanced by the learned Senior Advocate is based on the compromise dated 28 January 1993. The learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant submitted that only the families that mentioned in the compromise dated 28th January 1993 can perform the pooja, which did not permit Defendant No.3 to do so. This contention cannot be accepted. On 28th April 1988, a meeting was held before the Mamlatdar of Pernem and the committee members of Respondent- Devastan consented and accepted the right of Defendant No.3 to perform the pooja. Having accepted the right of Defendant No.3 in the year 1988, by a compromise entered into behind the back of Defendant No.3 the right of Defendant No.3, who was

¶18

3 SA111-17dt 10-11-17

¶19

admittedly not made a party in the compromise, could not have been taken away. Therefore, on the basis of the compromise, Defendant No.3 could not have been restrained. Both the Courts were correct in taking this view. No other restraint on Defendant No.3 is shown.

¶20

No substantial question of law arises. The second appeal is dismissed.

¶21

N.M. Jamdar, J.

Anant Vaman Parab., v. Shri. Devi Bhumika Vetal Devastan Palyem Pernem, Rep. by Its President Sadashiv v Parab and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Anant Vaman Parab., v. Shri. Devi Bhumika Vetal Devastan Palyem Pernem, Rep. by Its President Sadashiv v Parab and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Agnelo Caetano Colaco and 2 Ors., Vs Ernestina Pereira (Dec) Thr. Her Lrs. and 12 Ors.

Raghu G.Shet Parkar and Anr., Vs Vinayak S. Shet Parkar and 19 Ors.

Agnelo Caetano Colaco and 2 Ors., Vs Ernestina Pereira (Dec) Thr. Her Lrs. and 12 Ors.

Jude G. Tandon and Anr., Vs Sunil Noronha and Anr.

Branch Manager and Anr., Vs Shri. Sai Labour Contract Co-Op. Society, Thr. Its Secretary, Katri Balachandran Vadkke and Anr.

Goa Industrial Development Corporation, Thr. Its Managing Director., Vs Alandro Dilip Nunes and 4 Ors.