Holding

A writ court must not decide a disputed question of title; such matters are to be determined by the civil court under the Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act.

Summary

The dispute concerned a property bequeathed under a will that was allegedly altered, and later declared as evacuee property under the Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act, 1964. While a civil suit seeking declaration of title was pending since 1993, the High Court, in a writ petition, set aside a government order restoring possession to the respondent and entered into the contested question of title. The appellant argued that the High Court erred by deciding a title issue that should be determined by the civil court. The Supreme Court held that writ courts ordinarily cannot adjudicate disputed title matters and that, under Section 15 of the Act, such questions are within the jurisdiction of the civil court, not the administrator or government. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, directing the civil court to dispose of the suit expeditiously without influence from the High Court, and the appropriate authority to consider the restoration application after the civil decision.

Issues considered

Whether a writ court can entertain a disputed question of title when a civil suit is pending.
Whether Section 15 of the Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act, 1964 confers jurisdiction on the administrator or government to determine title.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the government order and deciding the title issue.

Subjects

property lawevacuee propertywill alterationtitle disputewrit jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionrestoration of propertynatural justiceGoa Administration Evacuee Property Act

Judgment

ANTONIO S.C. PEREIRA A
v.
RICARDINA NORONHA (D) BY LRS.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B

. Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act, 1964; S I 5(1), (2) and (3):
·Will-Testator bequeathedproperty in favour of successor/family members-
Allegedly terms of Will altered-PetitiOn-Collrt passing an order of C
tempora1y inj1mction restraining transfer of any part of the property-
Authorities declaring the property in _question as evacuee property-Appeal
against filed by one of the parties and review petition by another-Review
petition allowed by the authorities declaring the properties in question to
be non-evacuee property and also ordered delivery of possession in favour
of the petitioner-Set aside by the State Government-Challenge to-Reversed D
by the High Court entering into disputed question of title of the property-
On appeal, Held: In terms of provisions of the Act, the question of title of the
disputed property could be determined by Civil Court and not by the
Administrator/State Government-But a writ Court would not go· into a
disputed question as to title oj the property/legality/validity of the alteration E
in the Will pending for decision in a Civil Court-The High Court erred in.
entering into the .said question in exercise of writ jurisdiction-Jn the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case,. the Civil Court is directed to determine
the question wiihout being injlu¢ncf!d by the observations made by the High
Court.
F
on the death of wife of one •J', the property belonging to them was
partitioned and half of the estate was allotted in his favour and the other half
in favour of their children. 'J' also bequeathed his disposable quota of
properties, which later came into possession/ownership of one 'E'. A suit was
instituted by one of the successors before Civil Court for declaring the
allotment in favour of 'E' ceased to be valid/effective. Allegedly, another G
successor' M' bequeathed the property in question in .favour of her nephew,
the appellant, by way of a Will. The Court passed an order of temporary
injunction restraining respondent No.I-wife Qf 'E' from transferring or
alienating any part of the suit properties; where-against an appeal has been
211 H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ,~2006J SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A filed, which is pending in the Court. In the meantime, part of the estate
belonging to 'E' was declared to be 'evacuee prop1erties' by the State
authorities under the Goa Administration Evacuee Properties Act, 1964.
Respondent No. I filed an application for review of the order before the
authorities. The review petition was allowed by the authorities declaring the
B properties in question to be 'non-evacuee property'. An order for delivery of
possession of the said properties in favour of respondent No.I was also passed.
The said order was set aside by the State Government. Respondent No. I
questioned the correctness of the order before the High Court. By reason of
the impugned judgment, High Court while setting a:iide the order of the
Government of Goa purported to have entered into the disputed questions of
C title arising by and between the appellant and respondent No.I. Hence the
present appeal.

Appellant contended that the High Court committed a serious error by
entering into the disputed question of title in the writ proceedings particularly
when a civil suit was pending before a competent Civil Court.
D
Respondent No.I submitted that respondent No.3/the authorities had the
requisite _jurisdiction to direct restoration of property in terms of Section 15
of the Act and as such this Court should not pass any order which would come
in the way of the said authority from exercising its statutory power.

E Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I. I. It is trite that ordinarily a writ court would not go into a
disputed 11uestion of title. It is noticed that some of the issues pending before
different courts only for the purpose of showing that t~e parties are at
loggerheads as regards the title of the property and iv, particular the legality
F or validity of the alterations in the terms of the Will. !Before the High Court,
the order of the Government of Goa was in question. The High Court was of
the opinion that both the orders were not passed by a competent authority in
terms of Section 15 of the Goa Administration Evacuee Properties Act and as
such they were void ab initio. The High Court proc:eeded to hold that the
G matter is required to be considered afresh by the Government or an authorized
officer. While, however, issuing the said direction, the Court entered into a
side issue, namely, title of the successor ofRespond1:nt No.I which was not
warranted. The dispute in regard to the title of the properties is pending for
decision in Civil Court since 1993. The High Court should have allowed the
Civil Court to go into the said question. The statutory scheme under the said
H Act clearly shows that the question of title can be determined by the Civil
ANTONIO S.C. PEREIRA r. RICARDINA NORONHA (D)BY LRS [S.B. SINHA, J.) 2 J3 .
Court and not by the administrator or the Government ofGoa.1217-C-D-E-Fl A

1.2. The statute may not contain any explicit provision to hear a third .
party but it is not excluded either. Tlie principle of natural justice as well as
that of pro interessesuo would be applicable in such a situaOon. (217-GI ·

2. In. the peculiar facts aud circumstances of the case, it is directed that B
the Civil Court would dispose of Suit No.154 cif 1993 as· expeditiously as
possible without being in any way influenceil by the observations made by the
High Court. Thereafter, the appropriate authority shall consider the
application filed by the respondents. (218"8-C-Dj·

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4128 of2006. . C

From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2004 of the High Court
·of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 117/2000.

T.K. Andhyarujina, Prashant Kumar, Triveni Potekar and Chander Shekhar
Ashri for the Appellant. D
Mukul Rohatgi, Dhruv Mehta, Harshvardhana Jha, Yashraj Deora, Manoj
Mehta (for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co.), Shric!har Y. Chitale and Abhijat P. Medh
for the Respondents.

The Judgment. of the Court was delivered by E

S.B. SINHA, J : Leave granted.

Jose Joaquim de Noronha was the Count of Mayem. He was married to
one Filomena Correia Noronha .. They had six children (two sons and four
daughters). Jose Joaquim had grandchildren through his son Dr. Francis F
Antonio, who was married to Racardina. Filomena died in 1903. On-her death,
in the inventory, half of the estate was allotted to Dom Jose .J,oaquim de
Noronha and the other half to their children. On or about 17118.04. 1'929, Dom
Jose Joaquim de Noronha bequeathed his disposable quota of properties
allotted to· him in th,e inventory upon the death of Filomena. He died on G
20.04.1929. Upon hi~ death, his disposable quota of properties was purportedly
described as southern lot. Allegedly, _the terms of the Will were later altered
on 20.06.1930. The legality of such a course of action, however, is in dispute.

On or about 24.12.1964, the Goa Administration Evacuee Property Act,
1964 (for short, 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder came into force. H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 6 S.CR.

A Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Act, waich are relevant for
our purpose read as under :

"15. Restoration ofevacuee property.-( 1) (Save as provided under
section (3) and subject to such rules] as may be made in this behalf,
any evacuee or any person claiming to be an hes of an evacuee may
B apply to Government or to any person authorized by it in this behalf
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the authorized person) that
any evacuee property which has vested in the Custodian and to
which the applicant would have been entitled if this Act were not in
force, may be restored to him.

C (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1) Government
or the authorized person, as the case may be, shall cause public notice
thereof to be given in the prescribed manner. and after causing an
inquiry into the claim to be held in such manner as may be prescribed,
shall -

D (a) if satisfied -

(i) that the conditions prescribed by rules made in this behalf have
been satisfied,

(ii) that the evacuee property is the property of the applicant, and
E
(iii) that it is just or proper that the evacuee property should be
restored to him,

Make an order restoring the property to the applicant, or

(b) if not so satisfied, reject the applica";ion :
F
Provided that where the application is re.1ected on the ground that
the evacuee property is not the property of the applicant, the rejection
of the application shall not prejudice the right of the application to
establish his title to the property in a Civil Court, or

G (c) if there is any doubt with respect to the title of the applicant
to the property, refer him to a Civil Court for the determination of his
title :

Provided that no order for the restoration of any evacuee property
shall be made under this sub-section unless provision has been made
H in the prescribed manner for the recovery of any amount due to the
ANTONIOS.C. PEREIRA v. RICARDINA NORONHA(D) BY LRS. [S.B SINHA, lJ 215
Custodian in respect ·of the property or the management thereof. A
(3) Upon the restoration of the prope1iy to the evacuee or to the
heir, as the case may be, the Custodian shall stand absolved of all
responsibilities ·in respect of the property, so restored, but such
restoration shall not pr~judice the rights, if any in respect of the
,, prooerty which any other person may be entitled to enforce against B
the person to whom the property h.as been so restored.

Provided that every lease granted in respect of the property by
or on behalf of the Custodian shall have effect against the person to
whom resto~ation is made until such lease is determined by lapse of
time or by operation of law." C
On 14.11.1967, the southern half of the estate of Mayern belonging to
Eurico Silva was declared to be 'evacuee properties'.

A suit was instituted before a learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Panaji, Goa, in the year 1993 for a declaration that the allotment in Inventory D
Proceedings No.957 of 1929 to Eurico ceased to be valid/effective.

It further appears that Ricardina, wife of Eurico, filed an application
before the Custodian 'for declaring southern half of Mayem as 'non-evacuee
property'. A prayer was also made for restoration of possession in her favour.
A suit being Civil Suit No.1/96/A was also filed restraining the Custodian from E
releasing the suit properties in favour of Ricardina till disposal of Suit No.154/
19931A. However, the said suit was withdrawn. By an order dated 16.09.1997,
the application filed by the Ricardina (since deceased) was dismissed.

Maria Elsa bequeathed her estate in favour of her nephew, Antonio S.C. F
Pereira, Appellant herein, by a Will. She died on 2 .l. l l.1997.

The Civil Court passed an order of temporary injunction restraining
Respondent No. I from transferring or alienating any part ·Of the suit properties,
where-against an· appeal has been. filed, which is said to be still pending.

Respondent No. I,. however, filed an .application for review· of the .order
G
before Respondent No.3. In the said proceeding an objection was filed by the
Appellant herein. The said objection was rejected. A suit was filed by the
Appellant that the application filed by Respon.dent No. I for reconsideration
of the said order dated 16.09.1997 by Respondent N.o.3 be declared as null
H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A ar. :I void. The said suit was dismissed. An appeal there-against is said to be
pending.

Respondent No.3 by reason of an order dated 21.04.1999, however,
reviewed his earlier order dated 16.09.1997, declaring that the entire alleged
southern half of Mayem estate to be 'non-evacuee property'. An order was
B also passed on 17.05.1999 for delivery of possession of the said properties
in favour of Respondent No. I.

The said order was, however, set asi4e by the Government of Goa by
an order dated 14.02.2000. Respondent No. I questioned the: correctness of the
C said order passed before the High Court.

Original Respondent No. I expired on 22.11.200 I and her heirs and legal
representatives were brought on records in the writ proceedings before the
High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2004, the High
Court while setting aside the order of the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu
D dated 14.02.2000 purported to have entered into the disputed questions of
title arising by and between Appellant and Respondent No. I.

Contention of Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Appellant was that the High Court committed a
serious error in entering into the question of disputed question of title in the
E writ proceedings particularly when a civil suit is pending decision before a
competent Civil Court since 1993.

Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. I, however, would submit that while the Civil Court may
determine the disputed question of title, but the judgment of the High Court
F should be directed to be implemented by Respondent No.3.

According to the learned counsel, Respondent No.3 has the requisite
jurisdiction to direct restoration of property in terms of Section 15 of the Act
and as such this Court should not pass any order which would come in the
way of the said authority from exercising his statutory power.
G
The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment, inter alia, opined
that the order dated 21.04.1999 passed by Respondent No.3 was not vitiated
in law as the application filed by the said Respondent which came to be
rejected by an order dated 16.09.1997, had not been determined as was
H required under Section 15 of the Act, directing :
ANTONIO S.C. PEREIRA r. RJCARDINA NORONHA (D) llY LRS. [S.B. SINHA,!] 2J7

" ..... .if the legal representatives of Ricardina apply for hearing of the A
said application on merits within a period of four weeks by taking
steps to comply with the requirements of Rule 14(2) and (3) of the
rules, we direct the State Government to decide the said application

- afresh on its own merits. The restoration application may be decided
as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six B
months after compliance. We make it clear that the respondent no.3
has no title, as at present, to the share of Eurico in the southern half
property, i.e. the subject property."

It is now trite that ordinarily a writ court would not go into a disputed
question of title. We have noticed some of the issues pending before different C
courts only for the purpose of showing that the parties are at loggerheads
as regards the title of the property and in particular the legality or validity of
the alterations in the terms of the Will.

Before the High Court, the order of the Government of Goa was in
question. The High Court was of the opinion that both the orders dated D
16.09.1997 as well as 21.04.1999 were not passed by a competent authority in
terms of Section 15 of the Act and as such they were void ab initio.

The High Court, however, proceeded to hold that the matter is required .
to be considered afresh by the Government or an authorized officer. While,
however, issuing the said direction, the court entered into a side issue, E
· namely, title of the successor of Respondent No. I which, with respect, was .
not warranted. The disp~te in regard to the title of the properties is :>ending
decision in Suit No.154 bf 1993. The High Court, thus, should have allowed
the Civil Court to go into the said question.

The statutory scheme under the said Act clearly shows that the question F
of title can be determined by the Civil Court and not by the administrator or
the Government of Goa.

The statute may not contain any explicit provision to hear a third party
but it is not excluded either. The principle of natural justice as well as that G
of pro interesse suo would be applicable in such a situation.

It has not been disputed that the Civil Court would be the final authority
·n this behalf. If that is so, the Administrator would be bound by the judgment
of the Civil Court.
H
218 SLPREME COl'Rf REPORTS 12001!1Sl'PP.6 S.C.R.

, '\ We haw furthermore noticed herein before that t!1e Appellant had not
been heard before the Custodian. If he is claiming title over the property.
indisputably he would suffer substantial injury. if possession is restored in
favour of Respond.:nt No. I herein. The Act ,.iso conte nplates det<:nnination

H
of disputed question of title by the Ci\ ii Court.

Keepin'.! in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. we
-
are of the opinion that with a view to do complete justice between the parties,
the following directions shall be issued :

(i) The Civil Court would dispose of Suit No.154 11f 1993 as expeditiously
C as possible and preforably within a period of six months from the date of
recl·ipt of a copy of this order. without being in any way influenced by the
observations made by the High Court:

(ii) The Civil Court shall not grant any adjournment to the parties. save
and except for .,ufticient and cogent reasons;

D (iii) The appropriate authority shall consider the application filed by the
Respondents hL·n:in atier the decision of the sdid sui. in accordanct: with Jaw.

(iv) In the said proceedings, the Appe:lant may also be heard.

(v) It would be open to the parties to raise all contentions bdore the
E said authority.

The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioneu hereinabove. The parties,
in the facts and circumstances of tht: case, shall pay and bear their own costs.

F S.K.S. Appeal allowed.