IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA, PANAJI

CIVIL

CIVIL

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2000

REVISION APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2000

REVISION APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2000

Shri Vishwanath Gopal Kamat

(since deceased), represented

by legal representatives:

1(a) Mrs. Pushpavati Vishwa-

nath Kamat;

(b) Mr. Nanda Kumar Vishwa-

nath Kamat;

(c) Mr. Uday Vishwanath

Kamat;

(d) Mr. Satish Vishwanath

Kamat;

(e) Mrs. Sunita Vishwanath

Kamat;

(f) Miss Kunda Vishwanath

Kamat.

All residents of Pilerne,

Bardez-Goa.

... Applicant.

versus

1. Mr. Jose Ivo Romano

Reginaldo das Dores Lopes

and his wife;

2. Mrs. Otilia Filomena de

Cunha Souza e Lopes,

through their Power of

Attorney Holder, Dr. Rui

Ponciano de Cunha e Souza,

residing at Mapusa,

Bardez-Goa.

... Respondents.

Mr. Carlos da Silva, Advocate for the Applicant/Original

Defendants.

Mr. Joseph Vaz, Advocate for the Non Applicant/Original

Plaintiff.

CORAM: P. V. HARDAS, J.

DATED: 22ND FEBRUARY,2002.

ORAL JUDGMENT

ORAL JUDGMENT

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Revision has been filed against the Order

- 2 -

dated 10th February, 2000, passed by the Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Mapusa, in Special Civil Suit

No.39/98/A, on the application Exhibit M-15 filed by the

Defendants for referring the Issues No.4 and 5 to the

Mamlatdar as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to

decide those issues is ousted. The learned Trial Court

after hearing the learned Advocates for the Plaintiffs

and the Defendants rejected Exhibit M-15 filed by the

Defendants on the ground that the jurisdiction of the

Court would depend upon the averments which are made in

the plaint. According to the learned Trial Court, the

defence which was taken by the Defendants in the written

statement would not govern the jurisdiction of the

Court. Reliance was placed by the learned Trial Court

on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of

Abdulla Bin Ali and others

Abdulla Bin Ali and others

Abdulla Bin Ali and others v. Galappa and others

Galappa and others

Galappa and others

reported in (1985) 2 SCC 54.

2. Mr. Carlos da Silva, the learned Advocate

appearing for the Applicant/Original Defendants has very

ably argued on behalf of the Applicant and has submitted

that in view of the provision of the Tenancy Act, the

jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the Issues

no.4 and 5 is ousted. Issues No.4 and 5 read as under:-

1. Whether the defendant proves that

the suit property is agricultural

land within the meaning of the

Agricultural Tenancy Act?

- 3 -

2. Whether the defendant proves that

he is deemed owner of the suit

property under the amended law

relating to agricultural tenancy?

3. Mr. Carlos da Silva, learned Advocate

appearing for the Applicant/Original Defendants has

placed reliance on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in

the matter of Gundaji Satwaji Shinde

Gundaji Satwaji Shinde

Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ramchandra

Ramchandra

Ramchandra

Bhikaji Joshi

Bhikaji Joshi

Bhikaji Joshi reported in (1979) 2 SCC 495. In the

aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court, the Supreme

Court has held thus:-

"If a person intending to

purchase agricultural land files

a suit for enforcing a contract

entered into by him and if the

suit is resisted on the ground

that the plaintiff is ineligible

to buy agricultural land not for

any other