Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Mahableshwar Pandurang Halankar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.06.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No. 36/2002/II, which rejected his application to strike off Issue No.6 framed on 02.05.2007. The petitioner had purchased the property in 1980 from the Confraria of Church and reconstructed a small structure in 1982. The respondents, who are the petitioner's relatives, claimed to be Mundkars of the suit house. The petitioner contended that the respondents' written statement contained only bare denials and vague allegations, without specifying the actual area or height of the house or the date of their occupation as on the appointed date under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. The learned Single Judge, F. M. Reis J., held that the court cannot mechanically frame an issue to oust its jurisdiction when no particulars have been furnished in the pleadings. Since the respondents failed to provide specific pleadings regarding their occupation, the issue of Mundkar rights could not be sustained. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to strike off Issue No.6.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Issue Framing - Striking of Issues - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XIV Rule 1 - The court cannot mechanically frame an issue to oust its jurisdiction when no particulars have been furnished in the pleadings to support such issue. Where the written statement contains only bare denials and vague allegations without specifying the date of occupation or dimensions of the structure, the issue of Mundkar rights cannot be sustained. (Paras 2-4) B) Goa Mundkar Law - Mundkar Rights - Pleadings - Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, Section 2(i) - To claim Mundkar status, the occupant must specifically plead that they were residing with a fixed habitation as on the date when the Act came into force in 1975. Vague allegations without particulars of such date of occupation are insufficient to frame an issue. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Judge erred in refusing to strike off Issue No.6 regarding Mundkar rights when the respondents' written statement lacked specific pleadings of occupation particulars.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.06.2008 is set aside. The trial court is directed to strike off Issue No.6 framed on 02.05.2007.
Law Points
- Issue framing must be based on specific pleadings
- not bare denials
- Court cannot mechanically frame issue to oust jurisdiction
- Mundkar status requires specific particulars of occupation as on appointed date.
