Bharati H Dangre, J. - (1.) On 05.10.2011, the Second Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the suit filed by the Respondent was barred by the law of limitation and hence liable to be dismissed. (b) Whether the Order passed by the Mamlatdar of Salcete on the application filed by the Appellant no.1 under section 29(4) of the G.D.D. Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 for registration of herself as a mundkar of the suit hut could be termed as an adjudication of the mundkarial rights of the appellants in the absence of there being any declaration sought under section 8 A of the said Act and any proceedings in that regard.
(2.) Today, when the appeal is called out, the learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias and the learned Counsel Mr. C. A. Coutinho for the respondents are in consensus in making a submission that the substantial question of law framed vide point No.(b) do not survive as on date in view of the subsequent development, being the case filed by the Defendants in the Court of Mamlatdar-III of Salcete seeking a declaration under Section 8A of the Goa Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 being dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.07.2015. In view of this development the substantial question of law framed at point No.(b) stands answered and the Appeal require consideration only on the question of law framed vide point No.(a).
(3.) The appellant in the Appeal is the original defendant. The plaintiff Mr. Jose Antonio Luis (the present defendant) initiated proceedings for eviction of the defendant in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao. The plaintiff pleaded to be the owner in possession of the suit property described in paragraph (1) of the plaint. It is pleaded that there is a hut situated in the suit premises and the plaintiff had permitted one Nicolau Menezes to dwell in it since 1985 and he continue to reside there and assist the plaintiff in all agricultural work in the suit property and other properties belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1, who is the sister-in-law of Nicolau, i.e. sister of his wife came to reside in the suit hut on account of strained relationship with her husband and she being his wife's sister, Nicolau permitted her to join in the dwelling house. It is pleaded that some time in the year 1993 the plaintiff noticed the defendant No.1 staying separately in the suit hut and when Nicolau who was an authorised occupier of the suit hut was questioned he responded by expressing his helplessness. The plaintiff approached the defendant No.1 and asked her to quit the premises as she was not authorised by him to reside there. She failed to do so.;