VILAS SURYAKANT PARVATKAR AND 7 ORSversusBALKRISHNA VINAYAK PRABHU DESSAI AND ANR

                               9-AO-6-2024.DOC




Suchitra



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.6/2024



 1. MR VILAS SURYAKANT PARVATKAR
 son of late Suryakant Laxman Parvatkar, 78
 years of age,

 2. MRS SAROJA VILAS PARVATKAR
 Wife of Vilas Suryakant Parvatkar, 61 years of
 age,

 Both residents of Mullos Paroda, Salcete - Goa.

 3. SHRI SUHAS SURIACANTA
 PARVATKAR, son of late Suriacanta Locximona
 Parvatkar alias Suryakant Parvatkar, 74 years of
 age,

 4. MRS SHOBHANA PARVATKAR
 Wife of Suhas Parvatkar, 73 years of age,

 Both residents of Paroda, Salcete Goa.

 5. SHRI PRADIPA ALIAS PRADIP ALIAS
 PRADEEP SURYACANTA PARVATKAR
  son of late Suriacanta Locximona Parvatkar,
 alias Suryakant Parvatkar, 71 years of age,

 6. MRS NITA ALIAS NEETA KESHAV
 PARVATKAR, wife of Pradipa alias Pradip
 Parvatkar. 69 years of age,

 Both r/o Mullos, Paroda, Salcete -Goa.

 7. MR KIRAN SURYAKANT PARVATKAR
 son of late Suryakant Lakshaman Parvatkar, 68
 years of age,

 8. MRS KALPANA K. PARVATKAR
 wife of Kiran Parvatkar, 57 years of age,

 Both residents of Parvot, Paroda, Salcete -Goa.    … APPELLANTS
       Versus

                                    Page 1 of 8
                               3rd September 2026
                                9-AO-6-2024.DOC




 1. BALKRISHNA VINAYAK PRABHU
 DESSAI, son of Vinayak Babani Prabhu Dessai,
 aged 59 years, r/o H. No. 62/B, Gauthan,
 Cotombi, Quepem – Goa.

 2. SHREE CHANDRESHWAR BHUTNATH
 SAUNSTHAN, A Devasthan formed under the
 Devasthan Regulation (Regulamento das
 Mazanias). Parvat Paroda, Goa. 403705,
 represented herein by its Attorney, having oice
 at Cotta, Amona, Quepem - Goa                        … RESPONDENTS


 Mr Shivan Desai and Ms Riya Amonkar, Advocates for the
 Appellants.

 Ms Kalpa Govekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

 Mr C. A. Coutinho, Senior Advocate with Mr Rohan Dessai,
 Advocate for Respondent No.2.


                 CORAM:                  VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

                 DATED:                  3rd SEPTEMBER 2026

 ORAL ORDER :

1.    his Appeal under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure
assails an order dated 01.04.2023, whereby the Court of the Civil
Judge, Senior Division at Quepem, has granted an order of
temporary injunction in favour of the Respondent No.1/original
plaintif in Special Civil Suit No.3/2023. he Appellants in the
present case are defendant nos.1 to 8 in the Suit whilst the
Respondent       No.2      is      the     original   defendant   no.9,
Devasthan/temple of which the original plaintif claims to be a
mahajan.



                                     Page 2 of 8
                                3rd September 2026
                          9-AO-6-2024.DOC




2.     he main grounds of appeal as argued by Shri Shivan
Desai for the defendant nos.1 to 8 are as under:-


      (a)   It was submitted that the indings of the Trial Court
      are perverse and contrary to the record, more speciically
      the minutes of the meeting of General Body dated
      26.01.2020; it was contended that the recording of the
      proceedings of the General Body meeting held on that day
      and the resolutions passed by the General Body of the
      Respondent No.9 would clearly lead to the conclusion that
      the mahajans of the temple had resolved to execute a Deed
      of Exchange with the defendants nos.1 to 9, to transfer the
      suit property which bears Survey No.6/0 Part of Village
      Amona in favour of the said defendants and in exchange,
      defendant no.9 would transfer lands under Survey
      Nos.79/3, 90/3, 80/1, 80/2, 84/5, 87/8, 88/2 and 88/4 of
      Village Paroda which belong to the defendant nos.1 to 8 in
      favour of the defendant no.9.         In this manner, it was
      submitted that the defendant no.9 and the defendant nos.1
      to 8 agreed to exchange their respective properties, with the
      intention that the defendant no.9 would possess and use
      the property under all the aforementioned survey numbers
      since it was contiguous to the property wherein the main
      temple was situated. According to the learned counsel, the
      Trial Court has not read the minutes and resolutions passed
      by the General Body in their true perspective, as a complete
      reading of the same would point to the fact that there was a
      clear understanding that the suit property under Survey

                               Page 3 of 8
                          3rd September 2026
                     9-AO-6-2024.DOC




No.6/0 part would be exchanged for the aforementioned
eight survey holdings which belong to the defendant nos.1
to 9.


(b)     It was further submitted that since the Devasthan
Regulations and more speciically Regulation 249 and the
provision of Chapter VI do not prohibit transfers of
property either by virtue of sale or by exchange, there was
no embargo on the transaction entered into; it was further
submitted that the transaction of exchange having been
completed, the properties had been transmitted respectively
to the defendant nos.1 to 8 on the one hand (Survey
No.6/0 part of village Amona) and to the defendant no.9
on the other. he transfer having been completed, there
was no cause for the Trial Court to grant a temporary
injunction in the nature of the restraint order on the
defendant nos.1 to 8 from dealing with the suit property,
creating third party rights thereon or carrying out any
construction/development works thereon.


(c)     It was then contended that the Trial Court has totally
failed to consider the fact that the properties of the
defendant nos.1 to 8 which were now in possession of the
Respondent No.9, had the ancestral house of the defendant
nos.1 to 9 standing thereon, which was demolished by the
defendant no.9. he defendant no.9 had therefore acted
upon the transfer and exercised its right of possession of the
suit property. In this view of the matter, it was submitted

                           Page 4 of 8
                      3rd September 2026
                        9-AO-6-2024.DOC




     that there being no denial of this fact, which is stated at
     paragraph 23 of the aidavit in reply, the Trial Court ought
     to have rejected the application at Exh.D-5. Alternately it
     was argued that the Trial Court placed an embargo on the
     defendant nos.1 to 9 from exercising their right over the
     suit property under Survey No.6/0 part during the
     pendency of the suit, it had to equally direct the defendant
     no.9 to maintain status quo and cease to carry out any
     development on the exchanged properties under Survey
     Nos.79/3, 90/3, 80/1, 80/2, 84/5, 87/8, 88/2 and 88/4 of
     Village Paroda.


     (d)   he learned Advocate for the Appellants further
     submits that the Trial Court has ignored the fact that the
     Plaintif and Defendant No.9 have executed a similar
     transaction in relation to a diferent property and such a
     transaction was not denied by either the Plaintif or the
     Defendant No.9; the said parties have therefore admitted
     that the Defendant No.9 had entered into similar
     transactions, as such could not take up a plea that the
     transaction of exchange between defendants no.1 to 8 and
     defendant no.9 was prohibited by the Devasthan
     Regulations.


3.   he impugned order, on the other hand has been supported
by the defendant no.9 and the plaintif who are respectively
represented by learned Senior Advocate Mr C. A. Coutinho and
Ms Kalpa Govekar. It was submitted by the learned Senior

                              Page 5 of 8
                         3rd September 2026
                          9-AO-6-2024.DOC




Advocate for the defendant no.9 that the Devasthan Regulations
do not permit a temple registered thereunder to transfer any of its
properties either by sale or exchange, save and except in terms of
Chapter VI of the Regulations that is to say only by way of lease.


4.    I have perused the impugned order and the record before
the Trial court. he resolution of the General Body dated
26.01.2023, when perused, prima facie would reveal that there is
no speciic decision recorded as to the terms of exchange; the
resolution does generally discuss the question of exchange, but it
does not appear, at least prima facie, that any speciic power was
given to the Managing Committee of the defendant no.9 to
execute a transfer of the suit property in exchange for lands under
Survey Nos.79/3, 90/3, 80/1, 80/2, 84/5, 87/8, 88/2 and 88/4 of
Village Paroda. he Trial Court, on considering the resolution
and the contents of the Deed of Exchange, has recorded a similar
inding, which, based on the material before it, appears to be
plausible. Since the Trial Court has taken a view by perusing the
two main documents, which are the resolution and the Deed of
Exchange, the discretion exercised by the Trial Court cannot be
termed to be perverse or de hors the record. Even if there is a
possibility of taking a diferent view, that by itself would be a
reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court
which is based upon the documents before it.


5.    he Trial Court, after considering these documents, has also
considered the survey records of the properties, and the fact that
the property transferred to defendant nos.1 to 8 fell in a

                               Page 6 of 8
                          3rd September 2026
                          9-AO-6-2024.DOC




settlement zone and further, that was exchanged by properties in
favour of the defendant no.9 in which their land use was
restricted since they fell in a No Development Zone. he Trial
Court has also considered the question of balance of convenience
and irreparable loss on the bases of the pleadings of the parties
and the material placed by them. Considering all these facts,
there would be no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised
by the Trial Court, in so far as it restrains the defendant nos.1 to
8, pending the disposal of the suit from alienating the suit
property or creating any third party rights thereon or developing
the same. In other words, the Trial Court has endeavoured to
maintain the status quo of the suit property during the pendency
of the suit.


6.    However, considering the transaction that the Trial court
was dealing with was a Deed of Exchange, in my opinion, the
Trial Court had to equally put defendant no.9 to terms to
preserve the properties put into its possession under the Deed of
Exchange i.e. the lands under Survey Nos.79/3, 90/3, 80/1, 80/2,
84/5, 87/8, 88/2 and 88/4 of Village Paroda. Whilst it is true
that the plaintif, as a mahajan of the temple, has iled the present
suit, and there are issues of maintainability of the suit raised in
the written statement at the behest of the defendants,
nevertheless, whilst granting an order of restraint against the
parties in whose favour the property of defendant no.9 had been
transferred (land under Survey No.6/0 part of village Amona),
was equally the duty of the Court to preserve the status of the
properties (Survey Nos.79/3, 90/3, 80/1, 80/2, 84/5, 87/8, 88/2

                               Page 7 of 8
                          3rd September 2026
                                                            9-AO-6-2024.DOC




                                  and 88/4 of Village Paroda) which were put into possession of the
                                  defendant no.9 by the very same document.           Consequently,
                                  whilst I uphold the order of the Trial Court insofar as it passes a
                                  restraint order in relation to the land under Survey No.6/0 part of
                                  village Amona against defendant nos.1 to 8, I deem it appropriate
                                  to issue a similar order of restraint against defendant no.9; the
                                  appeal is therefore allowed to a limited extent that in addition to
                                  the order of restraint as stated in the impugned order against
                                  defendant nos.1 to 8, there shall now also be an order of
                                  temporary injunction restraining defendant no.9 from acting on
                                  the basis of the suit deed of transfer dated 20.10.2021 (deed of
                                  exchange) by carrying out any development work or creating
                                  third party rights in the land under Survey Nos.79/3, 90/3, 80/1,
                                  80/2, 84/5, 87/8, 88/2 and 88/4 of Village Paroda till the disposal
                                  of the Special Civil Suit No.3/2023.


                                  7.    Ordered accordingly.    Appeal stands disposed of in the
                                  above terms.


                                                                         VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN                                       Page 8 of 8
SINGBAL                                                     3rd September 2026
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 03/09/2026 18:57:19