Heard Shri M.B. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel and perused the submissions in writing filed by him. Learned Counsel Shri Bras De Sa has endorsed the said submissions, and learned Counsel Mrs. Agni has not expressed a different view, either.

2. The submissions do not make any reference either to Section 20A of the Goa Civil Courts Act, 1965 which came in force from 17/09/2009 or to the judgment of this Court in the case of Octaviano Teogono Alcacoas Vs. Rosa Milagrina A. (2005 SUPP Bom.C.R. 67). These appeals arise from suits filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division and the suit in first appeal was valued at Rs.25,000/-, in second appeal for Rs.1,10,000/- and in the third appeal at Rs.1,00,100/-for the purpose of jurisdiction and a Court fee of Rs.25/-was paid, in each. These appeals have been filed either granting or refusing to grant divorce under Article 4(4) of the law of divorce. The first two appeals were pending before this Court as on the date when the said Section 20A came into force. Section 20A reads as follows:

"20A : Transfer of pending appeals before the High Court -All appeals which are valued upto Rupees Twenty lakhs or below and pending before the High Court immediately before the commencement of the Goa Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2009, shall, on such commencement stand transferred to the concerned District Court and such District Court may proceed to deal with such appeals from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de-novo as such District Court may deem fit:

Provided that this section will not apply to any appeals which are pending before the High Court and which are statutorily provided under the relevant Act before the High Court."

3. It is not the case of any of the parties that the Law of Divorce provides a statutory appeal to this Court. In fact it is their case that it does not. The Legislature is presumed to know the laws in force in this State and judicial decisions. Therefore, two of the appeals have to go to the District Court by the sweep of the Legislative fiat of Section 20A.

4. Secondly, in the case of Octaviano Teogono Alcacoas (supra), reference was made to the Division Bench judgment in para 16 and it was stated that in the case of Shri Agnelo Rasquinha Vs. Maria Cynthia Luiza De Piedade Colaco Rasquinha (1989 GLT 28), this Court referring to the case of Maria Christine De Souza Soddar Vs. Maria Zurna Pereira Pinto (AIR 1979 SC 1352) had held that:

"An appeal must lie on a combined reading of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the relevant provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Civil Courts Act, 1965 either to the District Court or the High Court depending upon the pecuniary valuation of the subject-matter of the suits. Any suits below Rs.25,000/-in valuation appeals against orders and decrees lies to the District Court and above to the High Court."

In para 22, it was further held that:

"The provision of Article 317 of the Code is a provision which deals with valuation in relation to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Since the matter of valuation is now dealt by Suits Valuation Act, 1965 and the aspects of jurisdiction are dealt by the Civil Court Act, 1965, after the enforcement of the said Acts in this State, the provisions of Article 317 being a corresponding provision relating to those matters stands repealed by the respective repealing provisions of the said Acts of 1965."

It was further held that in such a situation, the contention that the provisions of Article 317 (of CPC, 1939) gave a party a definite forum of appeal cannot be accepted. It may also be stated that although the right of appeal is a substantive right, forum where the appeal should be filed is a procedural matter and the said forum is now the District Court as provided by Goa, Daman and Diu Civil Courts Act, 1965.

5. The submission appears to be that Article 317 (CPC, 1939) determines not only the forum of trial, but also the forum of appeal