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