The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact, and the court emphasized the need for the petitioners to establish their entitlement for the relief of permanent injunction, including the connection between tenancy, possession, and ownership of the suit property.

Headnote:
OWNERSHIP - Tenancy Dispute - Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - Section 2(22), Section 2(23), Section 2(13), Section 2(11), Section 2(6), Section 2(7) - The court discussed the entitlement of the plaintiffs for the relief of injunction, the burden of proof, and the necessity of establishing possession and cause of action for filing the suit. The court emphasized the need for the petitioners to prove their entitlement for the relief of permanent injunction and the connection between tenancy, possession, and ownership of the suit property. The court also highlighted the importance of pleadings and the burden of proof in establishing the claim of tenancy and possession.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for permanent injunction to restrain interference in the suit property. The respondents claimed tenancy and possession of the property, while the petitioners asserted ownership and interference by the respondents. The trial Court rejected the petitioners' application for a decree in the suit, stating the need for the petitioners to prove possession and cause of action.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners had established their entitlement for the relief of permanent injunction, as the respondents failed to prove their claim of tenancy and possession. The court held that the trial Court's rejection of the petitioners' application was an improper exercise of jurisdiction.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the petitioners for the relief of permanent injunction, the burden of proof, and the necessity of establishing possession and cause of action for filing the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the petitioners to prove their entitlement for the relief of permanent injunction and the connection between tenancy, possession, and ownership of the suit property. The court also highlighted the importance of pleadings and the burden of proof in establishing the claim of tenancy and possession.
Final Decision: The petitioners were entitled to a decree in the suit, and the trial Court was directed to decree the suit in favor of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

2.This revision application arises from order dated 6-1-2000 passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 3/2000 in Regular Civil Suit No. 16/91 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Pernem. By the impugned order the trial Court has dismissed the application dated 12-8-99 filed by the petitioners praying for a decree of the Court in favour of the petitioners on the ground that there was no need of any further trial in the suit as the issue of tenancy sought to be raised by the respondents has been finally decided against the respondents and that there is no other plea of defence raised by the respondents in the suit.

3.The undisputed facts relevant for the decision that the petitioners filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the respondents and their agents from interfering in any manner in the suit property. The suit property comprises of property known as "Hondali Sorva" situated in Village Dhargalim, taluka of Pernem bearing Survey No. 260/2 and admeasuring 89,000 sq.mtrs. in area having therein different types of fruit bearing trees. The petitioners who are the owners of the suit property, have inherited the same from their father alongwith other heirs. The suit property has been registered in the record of rights in the name of the father and uncle of the petitioner No. 1. An area of 7125 sq.mtrs. of the said property was acquired by the Government for the purpose of improvement of National Highway No. 17 by issuing Notification under the Land Acquisition Act on 1-11-1983 and the entire compensation for such acquisition was paid to the owners of the suit property.

4.It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents have no right or title or interest of whatsoever nature in or to the suit property and yet they sought to disturb the possession of the petitioners on 14-2-1991 and again on 22-2-1991 and even demolished their temporary hut in the suit property and hence they were compelled to file the present suit.

5.On the other hand, it is the case of respondents that they are tenant in possession of the property over a period of last forty years and therefore there is absolutely no cause of action for filing the suit. As regards the compensation received by the owners on acquisition of an area of the suit property, it is their case that the owners had promised the respondents that the monies would be paid to them as soon as the same were received by the owners.

6.In view of the plea of tenancy, the Issue No. 2 was framed as to whether the defendants prove that they are tenants in possession of the suit property and in terms provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 hereinafter referred to "as the said Act" the jurisdiction to decide the said issue being with the Mamlatdar, the respondents were directed to obtain the necessary declaration of tenancy in respect of the suit property from the Court of Mamlatdar. The order to that effect was passed by the Trial Court on 30-11-1991. Accordingly, the respondents filed an application before the Mamlatdar of Pernem being Case No. TNC/2/92 seeking a declaration that they were the tenants in possession of the suit property. The respondents' claim was rejected by the Mamlatdar by its judgment and order dated 8-7-1994 after holding necessary inquiry in that regard. An appeal preferred by the respondents bearing No. TNC/APL/10/95 was dismissed by the Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Officer, Mapusa by its judgment and order dated 25-7-1995. The Revision application against the same bearing No. 58/96 filed by the respondents was also dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 8-2-1999. Consequently, the petitioners herein filed the application dated 12-8-1999 praying for a decree of the Court for permanent injunction against the respondents to restrain them from interfering in the suit property on grou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(Bom) 319

The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact, and the court emphasized the need for the petitioners to establish their entitlement for the relief of permanent injunction, including the connection between tenancy, possession, and ownership of the suit property.

Cases Referred (4)