Communidade of Mapusa through Its Attorney Mr. Antonio Braganza Vs Prabhavati Prabhakar Parob and Anr.

1

 Santosh

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

 SECOND APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2011

¶5

Communidade of Mapusa,
Near St. Jerome Church,
Mapusa, Bardez, Goa,
Through its attorney Antonio Braganza.…. Appellant.

¶6

 Versus

¶7

1. Smt. Prabhavati Prabhakar Parob,
residing at House No. 75, (ILL) /2,
Dangui Colony, Mapusa, Goa.

¶8

2.The Administrator of the
Communidade of Mapusa
near El Capitan House,
Mapusa, Goa…. Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Valmiki Menezes, with Ms. Shanti Narvekar, Advocates for the
Appellant.

¶10

Mr. Rohit Bras de Sa, with Ms. V. Shet, Advocates for Respondent
No.1.

¶11

Coram: M.S. Sonak, J.
 Dated: 19th March 2021

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

 Heard Mr. Valmiki Menezes for the Appellant and Mr.
Rohit Bras de Sa for Respondent No.1.

¶14

2. This Second Appeal was admitted on 11th November 2011

¶15

2

¶16

on the following substantial questions of law :

¶17

1.Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the suit plot
was lawfully allotted to the plaintiff was contrary to the
Scheme of the Code of Communidade and whether the
Trial Court's total non consideration or application of the
mandatory provisions of the said Code to the facts of the
present case, vitiates the Decree passed by the Courts
below ?

¶18

2.Whether in the absence of any evidence led by the plaintiff on compliance with the procedure laid under the Code of Communidade for allotment of plots, and in the light of a total absence of evidence on statutory approvals and licences for the construction of the plaintiff, the Decrees of the Courts below are legally unsustainable ?

¶19

3. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has
misconstrued the evidence on record with regard to the
knowledge of the Appellant of the Judgment passed by the
learned Trial Judge whilst deciding the application for
condonation of delay ?

¶20

3.In this case, the Appellant was the original Defendant No.1,
Respondent No.1 was the original Plaintiff and Respondent No.2 was
the original Defendant No.2 in Regular Civil Suit No.76/98/B
instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mapusa. The
Appellant had also raised a Counter-claim in the matter. Ultimately,
the record indicates that the Suit was not contested or the Counter-
claim was not pursued by the Appellant and the Suit came to be
decreed by Judgment and Decree dated 19th November 2005. The
Counter-claim claim was naturally dismissed.

¶21

3

¶22

4.The Appellant-Communidade instituted an appeal before
the District Court at Mapusa (First Appellate Court), after a delay of
1286 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the
Appellant's main contention was that its Attorney and Clerk (which
are statutory positions in terms of the Code of Comunidades)
colluded with the Plaintiff (Respondent No.1) or, in any case, acted
in excess of the authority conferred upon him by the Code of
Comunidades. As a result, the Communidade, not only suffered an
ex parte decree but further, the Communidade was not even aware of
the Decree, until the neighboring plot owner/ allottee, pointed out
this fact to the Managing Committee of the Communidade after he
received a notice from the Revenue Authorities on the Plaintiff’s
application for mutation based on the ex parte decree.

¶23

5.The Application for condonation of delay then refers to a
three-member committee, constituted by the Managing Committee
to look into this entire issue. This committee looked into the various
aspects and submitted a report. The Committee also looked into
various aspects, including documents, and thereafter resolved to
institute an appeal against the ex parte decree.

¶24

6.Along with this application for condonation of delay, the
Communidade annexed this report of the three-member committee,
as also the letter dated 7/8/2005 addressed by the Attorney to the
legal adviser of the Communidade, who was appearing on behalf of

¶25

4

¶26

the Communidade in the Civil Suit, not to contest the Suit.

¶27

7.Mr. Menezes submitted that most of these aspects have not
even been considered by the First Appellate Court whilst dismissing
the application for condonation of delay. The First Appellate Court
has reasoned that the knowledge of the erstwhile Attorney, was the
knowledge of the Communidade itself. If the erstwhile Attorney has
colluded or acted in excess of the authority conferred upon him
under the Code of Comunidades, then, it is a matter which will have
to be separately pursued by the Communidade with the said
Attorney. However, that aspect is not relevant for the condonation of
delay.

¶28

8.Mr. Rohit Bras de Sa, the learned Counsel for the
Respondents points out that this Appeal raises no substantial
question of law. He submitted that there is ample material on record
that establishes that there was no infirmity in the allotment of the
Communidade plot. He submits that there is absolutely no evidence
of a serious charge, like collusion. He submits that even the self-
serving three-member committee report does not spell out any charge
of collusion. He submits that the delay was quite inordinate and,
since no sufficient cause was shown, there is no infirmity in the
impugned order. He submits that no substantial questions of law arise
in this appeal and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

¶29

5

¶30

9.After hearing the arguments for some time and considering
the rival contentions, according to me, this is a matter where the First
Appellate Court has misconstrued the cause shown by the
Communidade. The approach that the knowledge of the erstwhile
Attorney, amounts to the knowledge of the Communidade, at least,
prima facie, does not appear to be correct, since, the precise case of
the Communidade was that the erstwhile Attorney colluded with the
original Plaintiff or, in any case, acted way beyond the authority
conferred upon him by the Code of Comunidades. There has been
no consideration of this aspect by the First Appellate Court. Even, the
documents produced by the Appellant, along with the application
seeking condonation of delay, have not at all been considered.

¶31

10.There were contentions raised that the Code of
Comunidades prescribes a detailed procedure for allotment of plots.
At least, prima facie, this contention may not be so relevant in
deciding the issue of condonation of delay. However, there were
contentions raised that the Attorney, in terms of the Code of
Comunidades, had no authority to abandon the Counter-claim or
desist defending the suit instituted against the Communidade. At
least, prima facie, the provisions of the Code of Comunidades require
approval from the Administrative Tribunal before any such action is
taken by the Communidade itself, much less its Attorney. However,
all these are only prima facie observations. The main issue is that the
First Appellate Court has not considered all these aspects and to that

¶32

6

¶33

extent, there is a clear failure to exercise the jurisdiction in
considering the case put up by the Appellant at the stage of seeking
condonation of delay.

¶34

11.At the same time, it is true, as contended by Mr. D'Sa, that
the allegations of collusion or fraud cannot be lightly accepted. This
is because the allegations though raised in civil proceedings are to a
great extent quasi-criminal in nature. Accordingly, Mr. D'Sa is quite
right in his submission that full opportunity is required to be given to
all parties to make good such allegations. Mr. D'Sa submitted that
such allegations cannot be accepted unless they are backed by proper
proof.

¶35

12.After the matter was argued for some time, the learned
Counsel for the parties, based on instructions, agreed that the
impugned Order dated 28/12/2009, by which the First Appellate
Court refused to condone the delay in institution of the Appeal, may
be set aside and the matter be remanded to the First Appellate Court
for a fresh decision on the application for condonation of delay. The
learned Counsel submitted that on this occasion, both the parties
may be granted leave to lead the evidence both, documentary as well
as oral, to make good their respective cases on the issue of
condonation of delay.

¶36

13.Normally, this Court is quite reluctant to remand the

¶37

7

¶38

proceedings. However, this is a matter where the application for
condonation of delay cannot be decided one way or the other unless a
full opportunity is granted to the parties to lead their evidence. This
is one of those rare cases where the parties can be granted leave to
lead evidence on the issue of condonation of delay itself, though,
normally such matters are decided based on affidavits.

¶39

14.The proposal put forth by the learned Counsel for the
parties is quite fair and will afford a suitable opportunity for both
parties. Since the matter is being remanded, it is made clear that the
observations made in this order are only prima facie and the First
Appellate Court need not be influenced by any such observations
whilst deciding and disposing of the application for condonation of
delay, afresh, in accordance with the law and based on the evidence
which the parties will choose to lead before the First Appellate Court.

¶40

15. According to me, this is also a fit case where the Appellant, at this stage itself, should pay costs of 25,000/- to Respondent ₹ No.1. This is because, at this stage, it is too premature to lay the entire blame on the Respondent. If the First Appellate Court, on considering the evidence which the parties will lead, comes to some conclusions which are adverse to the Respondent, the First Appellate Court can always make appropriate orders in the context of costs. However, for the present, it is only appropriate that the Appellant pays the costs of 25,000/- to Respondent No.1. ₹

¶41

8

¶42

16.Mr. Menezes states that such costs will be paid to
Respondent No.1 or deposited in the First Appellate Court within
four weeks from today.

¶43

17.The impugned Order dated 28/12/2009 is, hereby, set
aside, subject to the Appellant paying/depositing the costs within
four weeks. Civil Misc. Application No.86/2009 is restored to the file
of District Judge-1, at Mapusa. The District Judge, consistent with
the observations made in this order, shall permit the parties to lead
evidence, both, oral as well as documentary in the context of the
application for condonation of delay. Since one of the Respondents is
a senior citizen, the First Appellate Court to dispose of the Civil
Misc. Application No.86/2009 as expeditiously as possible and, in
any case, within six months from today. The learned Counsel for the
parties state that both parties will cooperate with the learned District
Judge for expeditious disposal of the Civil Misc. Application.

¶44

18. The substantial question of law is answered in the aforesaid terms. The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with costs of ₹ 25,000/-, payable by the Appellant to Respondent No.1 within four weeks.

¶45

19.The parties/their Advocates to appear before the District
Judge-1, Mapusa on 29th April 2021 at 10.00 a.m. and file an
authenticated copy of this order. The District Judge-1 at Mapusa to
proceed further in the matter only after the Appellant produces proof

¶46

9

¶47

of payment of costs to Respondent No.1, or if the amount of costs is
deposited with the Registry of the District Court within four weeks
from today. If the costs are deposited, then Respondent No.1 herein
will have the liberty to withdraw the same, unconditionally.

¶48

20.It is once again clarified that the observations in this order
are only in the context of remand. Therefore, the First Appellate
Court should not take into account these observations or be
influenced by them whilst disposing of the Appellant's application for
condonation of delay on its merits having regard to the evidence
which the parties will produce before it. All contentions of all parties
are, therefore, expressly left open for consideration by the First
Appellate Court.

¶49

21.Further, it is clarified that this Court has not at all gone into
the merits of the original dispute between the parties in the Suit and
the Counter-claim.

¶50

22. The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶51

23.All concerned to act based on an authenticated copy of this
order. However, the Appellant, at a later point in time, should place a
certified copy of this order on the file of the First Appellate Court.
The Registry to ensure that the records are returned to the District
Judge -1 at Mapusa, at the earliest.

¶52

 M.S. Sonak, J.

¶53

SANTOSH S MHAMAL Digitally signed by SANTOSH S MHAMAL Date: 2021.03.20 12:04:38 +05'30'

Communidade of Mapusa through Its Attorney Mr. Antonio Braganza v. Prabhavati Prabhakar Parob and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Communidade of Mapusa through Its Attorney Mr. Antonio Braganza v. Prabhavati Prabhakar Parob and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ots Ltd., Rep. Herein by Its Director, Rajendra Kumar Gupta., Vs Pramod Damodar Borker and 2 Ors.

Kashinath Jairam Shetye Vs Deelip Raghavendra Shetye and 2 Ors.

Harichandra Vitola Porobo Aliso Known as Horichondar Vitto Porobo and 3 Ors., Vs Narana Pandu Porobo Gauncar (Deceased) and 8 Ors.

Shri Baburao Tukaram Mangale Vs Mrs. Ratnadeep Builders Represented by Its Sole Proprietor, Mr. Madhav N. Naik Kundaikar

Dr. M. v. Ramesh. Vs the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences and Anr.

Ramdeva Ram Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and 3 Ors.