Shri Vishram Jaya Shetkar Alias Manohar Jaya Shetkar and Others Vs. Shri Nanu B. Shetkar - Court Judgment

This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30/4/2003 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 98/1999.

2. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed by the defendant of Regular Civil Suit No. 83/1992/B against the Judgment and Decree dated 31/8/1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem (Trial Court, for short), in the said suit.

3. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Regular Civil Suit.

4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit, against the defendant, for damages of Rs.18,800/- and they had also prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said sum of Rs.18,800/-, calculated at quarterly rests as from 6/10/1992 till the actual payment.

5. Case of the plaintiffs was as follows:

They are co-owners in possession and enjoyment of a landed property, bearing survey no.19/17, situated at Amona of Quepem Taluka. The name of the plaintiffs or their late father has not been included in survey records, which is an error. In the beginning of February 1992, the plaintiffs brought about 200 laterite stones, 15 bags of cement, three truck loads of sand and other construction material and deposited the same in the said property, in order to construct a house therein. Thereafter, the plaintiffs started digging the foundation. The defendant is a mundkar, having his mundkarial house in the said property. The construction of the house undertaken by the plaintiffs was well outside the mundkarial rights of the defendant. However, the defendant filed a false, frivolous and vexatious proceedings bearing Case no. JM/Mund/1/92 before the Joint Mamlatdar of Quepem and also used physical and brutal force thereby restraining the plaintiffs from doing construction, due to which the plaintiffs could not go ahead with the construction. On 6/10/1992, after a period of nearly more than six months, the defendant having realized that the said proceedings filed by him before the Joint Mamlatdar of Quepem have no force and having further realized that the same may result in dismissal, the defendant withdrew the application for injunction filed by him. The plaintiffs had advanced a sum of Rs. 2500/- to the masons, which the plaintiffs lost. Three truck loads of sand brought by the plaintiffs got washed away in rains, thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.1800/-. The cement bags were rendered useless having become hard, thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.1500/-. Large number of laterite stones deposited at the site were robbed and taken away by the people and some of them, due to exposure to heat and sun, got damaged, due to which the plaintiffs suffered loss of Rs. 2,000/-. The plaintiffs have spent an amount of Rs.1000/- in defending the proceedings before the Joint Mamlatdar, which include advocate's fees, transport charges and miscellaneous expenses. In the course of attending the Court of Joint Mamlatdar, the plaintiffs had to forgo their routine work. The false and vexatious proceedings filed by the defendant caused mental tension, agony and hardship, on account of which, they have suffered loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed the total sum of Rs.18,800/- along with interest.

6. By of Written Statement, the defendant stated as under:

The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit since they have no right over the said property bearing survey no. 19/17 of village Amona. The plaintiffs are permanent residents of Sanguem having their residential house and business at Sanguem. The defendant is residing as mundkar of Shri Ratnakar Shet who is the real owner of the said property. The defendant has been duly registered as mundkar before the Mamlatdar, Quepem in Case No. JM/Mund/X-A/203/81, in the year 1981. The plaintiffs tried to dispossess the defendant due to which defendant had to file the proceedings before the Joint Mamlatdar, Quepem being Case No.JM/Mund/1/92. The said proceedings were withdrawn as no relief was granted by the Mamlatdar, even after a period of six months. The defendant never used any brutal force nor restrained the plaintiffs from doing the work. No ex-parte order was passed by the Mamlatdar. The plaintiffs dug foundation for construction in the said property, but due to the intervention of the bhatcar, Shri Ratnakar Shetkar, the same was refilled and thus it is the bhatcar who stopped the said work. No laterite stones or other material were deposited by the plaintiffs at the site and the plaintiffs have not suffered any loss.

7. The plaintiffs examined himself before the Trial court as PW. 1 and one Anrut Shetkar as PW. 2. The defendant examined his Power of Attorney holder, namely Uday Shetkar as DW. 1. The defendant examined himself as DW. 2 and said Shri Ratnakar Shetkar as DW. 3.

8. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have proved that they are co-owners in possession of the said property by virtue of Exhibits DW.3/D1-Cross (Birth certificate of Abolem) and Exhibit DW.3/D2-Cross (Deed of relinquishment with acquittance), which documents were produced by the plaintiffs in the cross-examination of DW. 3. The trial Court further held that due to the acts of the defendant, the plaintiffs suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 8660.20 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum calculated at quarterly rests from 6/10/1992 till actual payment. The suit came to be decreed partly, as above.

9. The defendant approached the District Court, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No. 98/1999. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court held that the documents produced by the plaintiffs in cross-examination of DW. 3 could not have been considered by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs have not proved that they are the co-owners in possession of the said property. The First Appellate Court further held that the plaintiffs also could not prove the damages.

10. The plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether the learned Appellate Court could have faulted the learned Trial Court for placing reliance upon a public document, on the sole ground that the same was not formally tendered in evidence, through the plaintiff or the plaintiffs' witnesses, but rather the same came to be brought on record during the course of cross examination of defendant's witness?

2) Whether in terms of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the admissions made by parties during the hearing/trial can be accepted as substantive evidence and reliance placed thereupon?

3) Whether the defendant, without setting up any title in himself, could have vaguely urged defences questioning the title of the appellants to the suit property, by setting up a title in a third party, or whether such defence could be said to have been barred under the Doctrine of “juster-ti”?

4) Whether the present Second Appeal filed on 30/7/2003 is maintainable in view of the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure by virtue of section 5 r/w section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002?

11. Mr. D. J. Pangam, learned Advocate, argued on behalf of the plaintiffs whereas, Mr. Galileo Teles, learned advocate, argued on behalf of the defendants.

12. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the birth certificate at Exhibit Dw.3/D1-Cross,colly proves that Abolem is the daughter of Narayan Shetkar and that the deed of relinquishment and acquittance (Exhibit DW.3/D2-Cross, Colly) sufficiently proves that said Abolem, daughter of Narayan Shetkar and Parvati, had relinquished and transferred her rights in moveable and immoveable properties in favour of Jaya, the father of the plaintiffs and since DW.3 stepped into the witness box and claimed that he does not know the plaintiffs at all, it was in his cross examination that the birth certificate of Abolem and the said deed of relinquishment was produced, which documents duly prove that the plaintiffs are the co-owners. He further pointed out that PW. 2 who is admittedly the co-owner of the suit property has stated that the plaintiffs have share in this property. He contended that the learned Trial Court rightly placed reliance on the said public documents which were produced in the cross-examination of DW. 3 and based on that had rightly held that the plaintiffs had proved that they were co-owners in possession of the said property. According to learned counsel, the First Appellate Court has erred in reversing the finding of the Trial Court on the ground that the said documents came in cross-examination of DW. 3 and hence could not have been considered. He relied upon “Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Premlata Shukla and others” [(2007) 13 SCC 476], wherein the Apex Court has held that a party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked, and that too, at the instance of a party which had proved the same and wherefore consent of the other party has been obtained, the former cannot be permitted to turn around and raise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon. He has also relied upon “BalakrishnaKamathi Vs. Ganesa Pai and others” (AIR 1954 Travancore-Cochin, 209), in order to buttress his above contentions. In the case (supra) it has been held that where the objection to be taken is not that the document is itself inadmissible, but that the mode of proof put forward is irregular or insufficient, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record. A party cannot lie by until the case comes before a Court of appeal and then complain for the first time of the mode of proof. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs then argued that though the defendant had no right to the said property and the construction undertaken by the plaintiffs was outside the mundkarial rights of the defendant, he, with malafide intention filed proceedings before the Joint Mamlatdar and also forcibly obstructed the plaintiffs from undertaking the construction, which was legal. He further pointed out that the defendant, without any rhyme or reason, withdrew the said proceedings after about six and half months, and it is because of that that the plaintiffs suffered loss. According to learned counsel, the Trial Court analyzed the entire evidence on record in detail and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 8660.20, which is reasonable amount towards damages sustained by the plaintiffs on account of the acts of the defendant. He fairly conceded that the Trial Court ought not to have granted interest at quarterly rests.

13. Insofar as the substantial question of law at serial no. 4 is concerned, Mr. Pangam, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs, argued that section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure(C.P.C.), which has been amended by virtue of section 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, pertains to recovery of money and the present suit is for damages. He further contended that this suit was filed in the year 1992 when the said amendment was not existing. According to learned counsel, the plaintiffs' right to file the appeal goes to the date of filing of the suit and cannot be taken away by amendment which came into force in July 2003. He, therefore, submitted that the Second Appeal be allowed.

14. Per contra, Mr. Galileo Teles, learned Counsel for the defendant, argued that though the suit is titled as one for damages, however, prayer clause “A” shows that the same is for recovery of money and hence, in terms of amended section 102 of C.P.C., the second appeal was not maintainable. He further pointed out that the suit was filed in the year 1992 and the plaintiffs had the right of first appeal against the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court but the amendment to section 102 of C.P.C. came into force from 1/7/2003 due to which the second appeal filed on 30/7/2003 is not maintainable. He further argued that the plaintiffs had all the opportunity to rely upon the documents produced in cross-examination of DW. 3 at the time when they had filed the suit and also during their evidence. The grievance of Mr. Teles is that DW. 3 was the last witness of the defendant and that the defendant had no chance to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs with regard to the documents produced in cross-examination of DW. 3. He further argued that there is doubt whether Narayan Shetkar was also known as Narayan Lolo Shetkar. There is also controversy regarding Abolem being the daughter of said Narayan and Parvati. According to him, the First Appellate Court has rightly rejected the said documents. He, therefore, supported the finding of the First Appellate Court to the effect that the plaintiffs could not prove that they were the co-owners of the suit property. Learned counsel for the defendant further contended that admittedly the defendant is the mundkar in the suit property and proceedings under Case No. JM/Mund/1/92 were bonafide proceedings filed by the defendant to protect his own rights. He contended that since the Mamlatdar did not give any relief, the defendant decided to withdraw the said proceedings. He argued that there is absolutely no finding on record to establish that the said proceedings were malicious or vexatious or false. In any case, Mr. Teles contended that no exparte order was passed by the Mamlatdar and therefore, the plaintiffs were not restrained by anyone from going ahead with their construction. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the claim of the plaintiffs has no substance. He further pointed out that the plaintiffs had not objected to the withdrawal of the said proceedings and had also not contended in the said proceedings that the same are malicious or vexatious. Alternatively, Mr. Teles contended that the plaintiffs had miserably failed to quantify the damages and that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly dealt with each claim and has held that the same has not been proved. Learned counsel for the defendant argued that there is absolutely no ground for interference with the impugned judgment. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

15. I have gone through the entire material on record.

16. It is seen from the records that there is no dispute that the defendant is the mundkar having his mundkarial house in the same property, in which the plaintiffs wanted to undertake the construction. The defendant had filed the proceedings under Case no. JM/Mund/1/92 under section 6(1) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 alleging that the plaintiffs tried to dispossess him from enjoying his easementary right over the area behind his residential house. The defendant prayed to restrain the plaintiffs from constructing any structure in survey no.19/17. The defendant had also prayed for an ex-parte order in terms of the above prayer. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they filed reply to the above application alleging that these are malicious or vexatious proceedings. It is pertinent to note that no ex-parte order was passed by the Joint Mamlatdar in the said proceedings and, therefore, there was no restriction upon the plaintiffs to proceed with the construction. There was no legal requirement for the plaintiffs to maintain status quo only because some proceedings were filed by the defendant. What is pertinent to note is that on 6/10/1992, both the parties appeared before the learned joint Mamlatdar along with their advocates and the learned advocate for the defendant made an endorsement on the application that he is withdrawing the same. The plaintiffs or their advocate did not object. The proceedings were closed. The learned Trial Court has nowhere held that the defendant had filed false, vexatious or malicious proceedings against the plaintiffs. The Trial Court has not held that the defendant had used physical and brutal force thereby restraining the plaintiffs from doing the construction. The basis for claiming damages was the filing of proceedings before the Joint Mamlatdar, which according to the plaintiffs, were vexatious, malicious and false and use of physical and brutal force, thereby restraining the plaintiffs from doing the construction. Since the above foundation of the claim for damages, itself, was not proved, the question of proving the quantum of damages did not arise. On this ground alone, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed.

17. Admittedly, the names of plaintiffs are not recorded in the survey records of survey no. 19/17, which is exclusively recorded in the name of Ratnakar Shetkar (DW. 3). It is not the case of the plaintiffs, as pleaded in the plaint, that their father was also known as Zaia Naique and that said Zaia Naique or Zaia Xetcar had acquired right through Abolem. There is no pleading in the plaint that Abolem was the daughter of Naraina Xetkar or Naraina Naique and his wife Parvoti and that these Narain Xetkar and his wife Parvoti were original owners of the property now bearing survey no 19/17 of Amona village. According to PW. 1, his father had purchased the said property sometime in the year 1936. But no sale deed has been produced, though he was directed by the Trial court to produce the same. A suggestion has been put to DW. 1 that the plaintiffs and their family members are beneficiaries of Narayan Rama Shetkar. A suggestion has also been put to DW. 1 that the plaintiffs' father purchased right in the suit property from Aboli Shetkar, the daughter of Narayan Shetkar. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the documents namely DW.3/D-1(cross), which is the birth certificate of Abolem and Exhibit DW.3/D-2 (cross ),which is, the Deed of Relinquishment with Acquittance dated 2/4/1946 were not known or available with the plaintiffs when they filed the suit or when the evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded. When the said documents were shown to DW. 3 in his cross-examination, he has stated that these are false documents. DW. 3 has specifically denied that the father of the plaintiffs and Savlo Shetkar had purchased the share of Abolem from her and her husband. He has denied that Abolem was the daughter of Narayan shetkar. The said documents have not been accepted to be true by DW. 3 and there was no opportunity to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiffs' witnesses on the said documents. The birth certificate produced as Exhibit D.W.3/D-1/Cross-colly says that Abolem is the daughter of Narayan alias Rebdi Lolo Shet and his wife Parvoti. Neither it is pleaded in the plaint, nor is it stated by PW.1 or his witnesses that the name of wife of Narayan Shetkar was Parvati or that Narayan Shetkar was also known as Narain alias Rebdi Lolo Shet and was married to Parvoti. In fact, the plaintiffs claim to be beneficiaries of one Narayan Rama Shetkar. There is nothing on record to prove that Abolem was the daughter of said Narayan Rama Shetkar. The said documents do not prove the nexus between the plaintiffs and the suit property. I do not find any perversity in the findings of the learned First Appellate Court to the effect that the Trial Court had erred in arriving at the conclusion that Abolem is the daughter of Narayan Shetkar merely on the basis of Exhibits DW.3/D-1(cross) and Exhibit DW.3/D-2 (cross).

18. In the light of the above, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.”, (supra) and that of the Full Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in the case of “Balakrishna Kamathi”, (supra) are not applicable to the present case. In any case, the plaintiffs through PW.1 or his witnesses have not claimed their title to the suit property through the said documents produced in cross of DW. 3. The defendants had no opportunity to rebut those documents. Hence, as rightly held by the learned First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs cannot be held to have proved to be co-owners of the said property.

19. The plaintiffs have claimed damages on the ground that on account of false, vexatious and frivolous proceedings filed by the defendant before the Joint Mamlatdar of Quepem and because of physical and brutal force used by the defendant thereby restraining the plaintiffs from doing the construction, the plaintiffs could not go ahead with the construction. Insofar as the alleged physical and brutal force used by the defendant is concerned, there is nothing on record showing that the plaintiffs had lodged any police complaint against the defendants. As far as the proceedings before the Joint Mamlatdar are concerned, they do not appear to be malafide, filed only to cause loss to the plaintiffs. There was no ex-parte order made against the plaintiffs. In the circumstances above, there was nothing which had stopped the plaintiffs from carrying out the construction. On this ground itself, the plaintiffs cannot claim any damages from the defendant. Be that as it may, the finding of the First Appellate Court to the effect that the trial Court has not assessed the evidence in its proper prospective while granting damages to the extent of Rs. 8660.20 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with quarterly rests is not without any basis and in any case it cannot be called as perverse. Hence, no interference is called for with the said finding of the First Appellate Court.

20. Section 102 of the C.P.C. provides that no Second Appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs. 25,000/-. In the present case, the original suit is not for recovery of money but is for damages. Therefore, section 102 of C.P.C is not applicable.

21. In view of the discussion supra, the substantial questions, as framed, are all answered against the plaintiffs, except the one at serial no. 4.

22. There is no merit in the present second appeal which deserves to be rejected.

23. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.