Back
1978 Supreme(Goa) 6
Goa High Court
TITO MENEZES, J.C.
Domingo Santana DSouza - Appellant
Versus
M.R. Wagle Trust - Respondents
Misc. Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1977
Decided On : 30 June 1978
S.K. Kakodkar with U.S. Kolwalkar, for Appellants; M.S. Usgaonkar, for Respondents.
A lease of immovable property for a fixed period ends by the efflux of time and does not require a notice to terminate it.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - LEASE OF RIGHT TO FISH - TERMINATION OF LEASE - NOTICE - POSSESSION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT - NOT APPLICABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants to restrain them from interfering with the suit land. Plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners of the property and had decided to develop it for the purpose of breeding shrimps, prawns, pinfish, oysters and pisciculture. They had entered into an agreement with the National Institute of Oceanography (N.I.O.) for obtaining scientific know-how and had carried out various works on the land. Defendants claimed that they were the lessees of the right to catch fish in the suit land and had been paying rent to the plaintiffs. They denied the plaintiffs' possession of the land and claimed that they were protected tenants under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the lease of the right to fish was for a fixed period and ended by the efflux of time. The question of terminating the lease by a notice, therefore, did not arise. The court also held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of possession of the suit land and that the balance of convenience was in their favour. The court dismissed the defendants' appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the lease of the right to fish was terminable only by a notice given by the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of possession of the suit land? 3. Whether the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The lease of the right to fish was for a fixed period and ended by the efflux of time. The question of terminating the lease by a notice, therefore, did not arise. 2. The plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of possession of the suit land by carrying out various works on the land, such as cleaning the drains and ponds, purchasing wood to replace planks of the sluice gate, engaging carpenters to fix planks, obtaining permission of the Collector to convert the land for pisciculture, entering into a contract with the N.I.O. for obtaining scientific know-how, and so on. 3. The balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs because they were already in possession of the suit land since about Feb, 1977 and had made considerable expenses and started breeding shrimps, prawns etc. in the suit land.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendants' appeal.
2. The case of the respondents/original plaintiffs is as follows :-
The plaintiffs are the owners of the property known as "CONOM" situated at Siridao and which consists of drains, ponds, bunds and coconut gardens. Fishing is done in the drains and ponds and there is a sluice gate and a protective bund for the purpose of controlling the inlet and outlet of water necessary for fishing operations. Fishing operations are done normally between the months of May and January of the next year. Thereafter the sluice gate is closed till the month of May. During the months in which the sluice gate is closed the bunds are kept dried in order to facilitate the work of cleaning the drains and repairing the bunds. The respondent used to sell to the defendants the right to catch fish within the said land during the period from the month of May up to the month of December. The consideration was to be paid in a lump sum or in instalments up to the end of January. In the year prior to the suit the right to catch fish was sold for Rs. 1,600/-. Fish was to be caught from the month of May to Dec., 1976. In Feb 1977 the plaintiffs closed the sluice gate by employing their own labourers. They did the work of cleaning the drains and bunds and purchased wood to replace the planks of the sluice gate. They engaged carpenters to fix planks. All this was done by the plaintiffs because they had decided to develop the property for the purpose of breeding shrimps, prawns, pinfish, oysters and pisciculture and so on. They were doing the preparatory work in consultation with and with the help of the National Institute of Oceanography (N.I.O.), which was imparting scientific knowledge on payment of agreed fees. Further work of contouring, bunding, fortyfying of drains, levelling and desilting was done. The N.I.O. loaned to the respondents the services of their Senior Research Fellow by name Shri Verlekar. The plaintiffs paid his salary at the rate of Rs. 950/- per month, Verlekar used to be in the property daily from 18-4-77 onwards. Other scientists of the N.I.O. also used to visit the property for the purpose of carrying on scientific experiments. They introduced larvae and fixed plastic trays for culturing oysters. The respondents applied on 3-3-77 for conversion of the land for pisciculture and the permission for conversion was granted by the Collector by the order dated 8-6-77. Thereupon the plaintiffs entered in a formal agreement with the N.I.O. and paid to it for consultancy by way of fees a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. They engaged one Madeva Conconcar to do the job of watching the suit land and regulating the flow of water. Madeva worked in the property since Feb., 1977 and started occupying a hut constructed by the respondents near the sluice gate.
On 25-6-77, the third appellant and a son of the first appellant assaulted Madeva while he was maintaining watch Sometime thereafter the respondent received a notice from the third appellant dated 4-7-77 to the effect that the third appellant was a lessee in respect of the sluice gate having paid Rs. 1,600/- on 9-5-77 on account of rent for the current year. That allegation is false as the payment was done by the first appellant as rent for the previous year from May to Dec., 1976. It is clear that the appellants intend to interfere with the sluice gate. They threatened the labourers of the respondent.
3. The case of the appellants/original defendants is as under :-
The third appellant is living in the suit property as mundkar carrying out watch and ward duties in respect of the coconut trees existing in it. The sluice gate is operated by him and his family members for over 40 years for fishing purposes on lease. They have been paying to the respondents r
