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

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 14-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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. 
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 
F 
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. 
D 
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. 
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 tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.