Back
Bombay High Court
R.K.BATTA
Ganga Coelho - Appellant
Versus
Neena Pinto - Respondent
Decided On : 09/06/1996
AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - MAMLATDAR - AMENDMENT - PENDING SUIT - RETURN OF PLAINT: Where a suit for permanent injunction is filed claiming tenancy and the question of title and tenancy is relevant, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the matter. However, if the Agricultural Tenancy Act is amended during the pendency of the suit, conferring jurisdiction on the Mamlatdar to decide the issue of tenancy, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted. In such a case, the proper course is to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the Mamlatdar under Order 7, Rules 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering with the suit field. The plaintiffs claimed to be tenants and now deemed owners by virtue of the Fifth Amendment to the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' claim and contended that the suit field was not an agricultural property and that they were the owners. The trial court framed issues on the questions of tenancy, agricultural nature of the suit field, and possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy in view of the amendment to Section 7 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, which conferred jurisdiction on the Mamlatdar to decide such issues. The court also held that the entire dispute now fell outside the Civil Court's jurisdiction and that the proper course was to return the plaint to the plaintiffs under Order 7, Rules 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation to the Mamlatdar.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy in a suit for permanent injunction where the plaintiff claims to be a tenant and the defendant denies the tenancy? 2. Whether the amendment to Section 7 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, conferring jurisdiction on the Mamlatdar to decide issues of tenancy, affects pending suits? 3. What is the proper procedure to be followed by the Civil Court when the entire dispute falls outside its jurisdiction due to a change in law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the issue of tenancy in a suit for permanent injunction depends on the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and any amendments thereto. 2. An amendment to the Agricultural Tenancy Act, which confers jurisdiction on the Mamlatdar to decide issues of tenancy, will affect pending suits if the Act is silent on the impact of the amendment on such suits. 3. In such cases, the proper procedure for the Civil Court to follow is to return the plaint to the plaintiff under Order 7, Rules 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation to the Mamlatdar.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of the trial court and directed the Civil Court to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the Mamlatdar.
2. The defendants in their written statement answered the pleadings in the plaint on the assumption that the plaintiff had averred that "he is a tenant" whereas the averment of the plaintiff was that he was a tenant and now deemed owner by virtue of Fifth Amendment to the said Act. On merits, the defendants denied that the suit field was an agricultural property and also that the same was leased to the plaintiff in the year 1956.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, a number of Issues were framed, but amongst them, the following Issues are material for the purpose of dealing with the revision in question. The said Issues are :
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit field is an agricultural property and the same was leased out to the plaintiff in the year 1956 by the defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves for the last 21 years the plaintiff is in a continuous, open and peaceful possession of the suit field?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he pays a sum of Rs. 200/- to the defendant as yearly rent?
7. Whether the defendant proves that this Court has no jurisdiction?"
4. The plaintiffs repeatedly filed applications claiming that the Issues whether the suit field is an agricultural land and whether the plaintiff was tenant of the suit field be referred to the Mamlatdar for decision in view of amendment to S.7 of the said Act which came into effect from 1991. The said applications were rejected by the trial Court and I shall refer to the said applications one by one. It may also be mentioned here, at this stage, that the trial Court vide Order dated 1st September, 1978 had answered the question relating to jurisdiction against the defendants and had come to the conclusion that in a suit for possession, the Court has to decide who is in possession of the property and the Court is not going to decide whether the plaintiff is a tenant or not. Obviously, this finding, though not challenged, is erroneous, since even though the suit was for permanent injunction, the Issues of tenancy and whether the suit field is an agricultural property under the said Act were not only relevant, but specific Issue, namely, Issue No. 1 had been framed in this respect and it appears that the lower Court while passing the said Order dated 1-9-1978 totally lost sight of the said fact.
5. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs had filed an application on 31-8-1991 in which it was prayed that the Issue whether the suit field is an agricultural land and whether the plaintiff was a tenant of the suit field be referred to the Mamlatdar in view of amendment to S.7 of the said Act. Unfortunately, the trial Court once again went on the erroneous assumption that not a single Issue has been framed in respect of tenancy of the plaintiff over the suit field. As I have already stated, Issue No. 1 had already been framed on this aspect. The trial Court vide Order dated 21-11-1991 came to the conclusion that, admittedly, the Court had no jurisdiction to decide whether the plaintiff is tenant of the suit field, but went on to hold that there is no provision to make reference of Issue relati
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
