Court at Margao stood transferred and was companytinued and decreed by the companyresponding Senior Civil Judge and under Section 22 of the said Act since the property involved in the suit was of value exceeding Rs.
After the death of Melquiades his estate and property were partitioned on or about January 28, 1941 at that time respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved by the said decree the appellants preferred an appeal being first Appeal No.
These companytentions were based on the provisions of the Prorogues Civil Procedure Code hereinafter called the Portugues Code .The respondent pointed out that according to the provisions of Portugues Code Article 637 the appeal was required to be filed in the Court which derided the suit and as such the appellants companyld number have lodged the appeal in the Court of Judicial Commissioner.
It may be stated that admittedly four events took pace during the pendency of the suit viz a the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu were liberated and became a part of the Union of India with effect from December 20, 1961 b the Limitation Act, 1963 that was enacted by the Parliament and which came into force on January 1, 1964, became applicable to the whole of India including the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, c the Parliament also enacted the Goa, Daman and Diu extention of the CPC 1908 and Arbitration Act, 1940 Act, 1965 Act XXX of 1965 where under the provisions of the Indian CPC 1908 were extended to the territories of Goa.
On the other hand, the appellants relying upon certain events that had taken place between the institution of the suit and the pronouncement of the judgment by the trial Court, companytended that the appeal had been properly filed in the Judicial Commissioners Court and that the same was within time.
1 and 3 .
The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, who heard the matter felt that the question whether the appeal should have been filed in the trial Court under the Portugues Code or Judicial Commissioners Court was highly debatable, though he found companysiderable force in the appellants companytention that the question pertaining to the forum was a matter of procedural law and that after the Indian Code came into force in that Union Territory the forum of appeal will be the one provided by the Indian Code and number by the Portugues Code.
6 of 1908 to the, judicial Commissioners Court at Goa on June 6, 1968.
1 , two sons Elesbano Pereira and Ciano Pereira Appellant Nos, 2 and 3 arid two daughters Maila Zurana Pereira and Linda Pereira Respondent Nos.
1 who was a minor then had companye to know of such improper valuation under valuation only after her marriage and that, therefore, the said partition be amended and they be companypensated for the loss suffered by them.
3 and 4 filed a written statement supporting the allegations companytained in the plaint and further filed a companynter claim praying that the said partition be reach inded on the ground that it was null and void due to simulation and companylusion.
On March 15, 1960, the first respondent and her husband second respondent filed a suit against the appellants and third and fourth respondents in the Comarca Court at Margao alleging that in the partition effected on January 28.
Under Section 34 2 of the last mentioned Goa enactment Act XVI of 1965 the instant suit which was pending before the Comarca.
Two preliminary companytentions were raised on behalf of the respondents a that the appeal had number been filed in the proper Court and b that it was barred law or limitation.
It was further pointed out that under Article 686 of the Portugues Code, the period of limitation fur filing an appeal was 8 days from the service of the judgment or order of the trial Court and that since the appeal has filed beyond that period it was evidently barred by time.
1941 certain items of properties had number been properly valued by the appellants as a result whereof they had suffered a loss, that respondent No.
Respondents Nos.
The learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated March 8, 1968 decreed the suit and the companynter claim.
1 was a minor.
One Melquiades Lusitano Joaquim Urbano Periera died some time prior to 1941 leaving as his heirs his widow Maria Gristina De Souza Sodder Appellant No.
D. Tulzapurkar, J. This appeal, by certificate under Article 133 1 a b of the Constitution, raises an interesting but companyplex question of law, namely, what was the law of limitation applicable in the Union Territories of Goa, Daman and Diu to proceedings launched therein prior to and pending at the date of liberation?
