Civil court jurisdiction cannot be prospectively ousted by later legislation for pending suits.

JUDGMENT

These appeals arises out of two appeals before the Sub Court, Cherthala, as A.S.Nos.97/2003 and 98/2003. Two separate judgments were rendered reversing the common judgment and decree of the Additional Munsiff Court, Cherthala, in O.S.Nos.400/1999 and 276/1999.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

O.S.Nos.276/1999 and 400/1999 were tried together. The plaintiff in O.S.No.276/1999 is the appellant in both these appeals. In O.S.No.400/1999, he is the 3^rd defendant. The appellant had instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the natural flow of water into his property for the purpose of agriculture operations and Pisciculture. O.S.No.400/1999 was filed by the Valiyakari Karshaka Seva Samithy seeking for mandatory and prohibitory injunction to remove the bunds constructed by the defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. Both suits were dismissed after a full fledged trial. As against the common judgment dated 22.08.2003 dismissing the suits, the appeals were preferred. When the appeal came up for consideration, it was pointed out to the first appellate court by the counsel for the respondents that, in view of the amendment caused to the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act , 2003, the suit is barred, because the civil court is ousted from the jurisdiction. When this objection was raised, the learned counsel for the appellant endorsed that, in the light of the above provision, the appeal can be disposed of without prejudice to the parties to agitate the dispute before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, by separate judgments on 02.09.2011, the appeals were allowed by setting aside the judgments and decrees in the respective suits and relegating the parties to ventilate their grievance before the appropriate forum constituted under the , 2003. Hence, the present appeal. 3. This Court, on 17.01.2012 while admitting R.S.A.

No.76/2012, framed the following substantial questions of law:

(i) The suit having been instituted in the year 1999, can an enactment in the nature of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 2003 (Act 31 of 2003 - enacted in 2003, and a subsequent amendment in such act in the year 2006 whereby a new section as Sec.68A(2) barring civil courts jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the authority under the act, be taken to bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate the suit of the year 1999, if at all the said Act 31 of 2003 applies to the issues involved of civil rights in this case?

(ii) Does the question of right of flow of water into the eastern kayal and dewatering the padasekharam which is a civil right being disputed by the defendants, at all come within the purview of dispute resolution under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 2003 (Act 31 of 2003)?

(iii) Does an alleged concession of law or fact made by the counsel, without consent of the client be binding upon the party?

and on 12.03.2013 while admitting R.S.A.No.88/2012, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

(i) The suit having been instituted in the year 1999, can an enactment in the nature of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 2003 (Act 31 of 2003) - enacted in 2003, and a subsequent amendment in such act in the year 2006 whereby a new section as Sec.68A(2) barring civil courts jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the authority under the act, be taken to bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate