Mazania Of Temple Of Shri. Navadurga Of Madkai, Thr. Its Att., Suresh Bhagwant Kamat And ANR., v. Shri. Devi Navadurga Pratishthan, Thr. Its Trustees Respondent No. 2 To 11 And 25 ORS.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 55 OF 2016 AND APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.28 OF 2017 1).

MAZANIA OF TEMPLE OF SHRI NAVADURGA OF MADKAI through its Attorney Shri Suresh Bhagwant Kamat, With office at Deulwada, Madkai, Ponda Taluka, Goa.

2) SHRI VALLABH KAMAT, President, Shri Navadurga Saunshtan, Madkai, Goa, P.O. Mardol, Pin 403404.

...Appellants.

Versus

1) SHRI DEVI NAVADURGA PRATISHTHAN through its trustees respondent no. 2 to 11.

2) SHRI SHAILENDRA VITHAL PANJIKAR, Son of Vithal Shapur Panjikar, Age 42 years, married, businessman, Trustee and president of plaintiff No.1, Resident of H.No.1125, Adan, Tonk, Madkai, Ponda-Goa.

3) SHRI TULSHDIAS MONU NARVEKAR, Son of late Monu Tau Narvekar, Age 59 years, married, Service,

Trustee of Plaintiff No.1, Resident of H.No.995, Adanwada, Madkai, Ponda-Goa.

4) SHRI MAKARAND DURGADAS GHAISAS, Son of late Durgadas Govind Ghaisas, Age 41 years, married, Service, Trustee of Plaintiff No.1, Resident of H.No.2, Shri Rajpurohit Sadan, Near Shri Navadurga Temple, Dutalem Wada, Madkai, Ponda, Goa.

.... Respondents.

5) SHRI KESHAV GAJANAN GAUDE, Son of late Gajanan Shanu Gaude, Age 34 years, married, Service, Trustee of Plaintiff No.1, Resident of H.No.224/1, Honso wada, Madkai, Ponda-Goa.

6) SHRI SARVESH NILKHANT MANGESHKAR, Son of Nilkhanta Logolo Mangeshkar, Age 38 years, married, Service, Trustee of Plaintiff No.1, Resident of H.No.1374, Honso wada, Madkai, Ponda-Goa.

7) SHRI CHANDAN KHUSHALI Son of Kushali Tanu Naik, Age 38 years, unmarried, contractor, Trustee and Vice president of Plaintiff No.1, Resident of H.No.457, Mahalwada, Madkai, Ponda-Goa.

8) SHRI SUDESH SUBHASH GAUDE, Son of Subhash Gaude, Age 31 years, married, businessman, Trustee and Secretary of Plaintiff No.1, Resident of H.No.96/B, Dutalem Wada, Madkai, Ponda-Goa.

9) SHRI GAURISH BHIKO NAIK, Son of Bhiko Ganesh Naik, Age 32 years, unmarried, Service, Trustee and Treasurer of Plaintiff No.1, Resident of H.No.933/A, Wadal Wada, Madkai, Ponda-Goa.

10) SHRI NARESH VITHAL NAIK, Son of Vithal Anant Naik, Age 42 years, married, Service, Trustee and Vice Treasurer of Plaintiff No.1, Resident of H.No.186, Madkai, Ponda-Goa.

11) SHRI PRASHANT MOHANDAS CHARI, Son of Mohandas Datta Chari, Age 36 years, unmarried, businessman, Resident of H.No.172/A, Honso Wada, Dhakanem, Madkai, Ponda-Goa.

12) SHRI RAJA HARISHCHANDRA Son of late Harishchandra B. Naik, Age 61 years, married, ex-serviceman, Resident of H.No.35, Dutolem, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

13) SHRI DAMU NANU GAUDE, Son of late Nanu K. Gaude, Age 61 years, married, ExServiceman, Resident of H. No.1342/1, Dutolem, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

14) SHRI DEVENDRA MONDAS MADKAIKAR, Son of Mohandas Madkai, Age 41 years, married, Service, Resident of H.No.8, Dutolem, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

15) SHRI GOKULDAS VASU GAUDE, Son of late Vasu Y. Gaude, Age 54 years, married, Service, Resident of H.No.1296, Askan, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

16) SHRI DNYANESHWAR HARISHCHANDRA NAIK, Son of Harishchandra A. Naik, Age 52 years, married, Service, Resident of H.No.646, Karanjal, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

17) SHRI KEDARNATH SHIVA JALMI, Son of Shiva K. Jalmi, Age 35 years, married, business, Resident of H.No.1223, Aksan, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

18) SHRI VINOD KASHINATH Son of Krishnath Naik, Age 39 years, married, business,

Resident of H.No.775, Parampai, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

19) SHRI SANDEEP SURYAKANT Son of Suryakant P. Naik, Age 33 years, married, business, Resident of H.No.440, Mahalwada, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

20) SHRI PARESH KIRA TARI, Son of Kira B. Tari, Age 31 years, unmarried, business, Resident of H.No.1130, Adanwada, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

21) SHRI HEMANT VASANT KALE, Son of late Vasant H. Kale, Age 61 years, married, retired, Resident of H.No.20, Dutolem, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

22) SHRI DIPU USHNO NAIK, Son of late Ushno Naik, Age 43 years, married, Resident of H.No.696, Parampai, Marcaim, Ponda-Goa.

23) SHRI ASHWINKUMAR NAIK, Son of late Gokuldas Shrivram Naik, Age 25 years, Service, unmarried, Resident of H.No.331/0, Uzro, Raia, Salcete, Goa.

24) GOVERNMENT OF GOA, Through Revenue Secretary, Government of Goa, Office of Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.

25) THE ADMINISTRATOR, Administrator of Mazanias of Ponda Taluka, Ponda Goa.

26) GOVERNMENT OF GOA, Through Chief Secretary, Office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.

Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. J. P. Supekar, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 to 23. Coram : M. S. SONAK , J .

Date : 25 th September, 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, learned Counsel for the appellants. Mr. J. P. Supekar, appears for the respondents No. 1 to 23.

2.

Mr. Talaulikar points out that there is yet another appeal from order No.28 of 2017, in which, as well the challenge is to the impugned order in this appeal. He submits that since the appellants in the present matter are also appellants to the said appeal, the appeal from order may also be taken up alongwith this appeal from order. Accordingly, appeal from order No.28 of 2017, which is not on board, is taken up on board in view of the request of the learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Talaulikar.

3.

The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned order dated 20.04.2016 by which the appellants, were restrained from dismantling, changing, substituting the idol of Devi Navadurga from the temple of Shree Navadurga of Madkai.

4.

From the date of the order, there is no interim relief in favour of the appellants herein. Besides, Mr. Talaulikar points out that by now the time for dismantling, changing or substituting the idol of the deity has also gone by. Mr. Supekar points out that even the suit is at an advance stage.

5.

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, there is really no case made out at this stage to grant any relief in these appeals from order. Except, it is necessary to point out that the suit will have to be disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations in the impugned order. 6.

Therefore, clarifying as aforesaid, both these appeals are disposed off.

7.

Mr. Talaulikar points out that there are some settlement talks in progress between the parties. If that be so, such settlement talks can as well proceed during the pendency of the suit. In fact, in these kind of matters, a settlement is a much better alternative than

litigation.

8.

The two appeals are accordingly disposed off in the aforesaid terms.

9.

There shall be no order as to costs.

10.

All concerned to act on the basis of the authenticated copy of this Order.

M. S. SONAK, J.

msr.