Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit for eviction filed by the original plaintiffs against the defendant-respondent concerning lands containing coconut trees. The plaintiffs had executed a six-year lease deed on January 18, 1967, terminated the lease by notice on May 5, 1972, and filed the eviction suit on October 10, 1973 after the lease expired in January 1973. During the pendency of the suit, the Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 came into force on April 20, 1976, introducing a new definition of 'agriculture' under Section 2(1A) and defining 'garden' under Section 2(7A) to include land used primarily for growing coconut trees. The trial court decreed the suit on January 27, 1983, which was affirmed by the lower appellate court. However, the High Court set aside the decree, holding that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction after the amendment because the question of tenancy had to be decided by the Mamlatdar under Section 7 and Section 58(2) barred the Civil Court's jurisdiction. The appellants contended that since the suit was filed before the amendment, the Civil Court had jurisdiction and the decree was valid. The respondent claimed tenancy rights over the coconut garden land, arguing that the Civil Court could not adjudicate the tenancy question. The Supreme Court noted that the Fifth Amendment had been upheld as valid by this Court in Union of Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu v. Lakshmibai Narayan Patial & Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 102, and relied on Inacio Martines (d) through LRs. v. Narayan Hari Naik & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 123, which held that after the amendment, the Act applied to coconut garden lands, and any question of tenancy had to be decided by the Mamlatdar. The Court reasoned that although the suit was filed before the amendment, the decree was passed after the amendment came into force, and there was no saving clause permitting the Civil Court to decide tenancy questions. Therefore, the bar under Section 58(2) applied. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the High Court's order, and directed that the plaint, written statement, and connected records from the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem be transferred to the concerned Mamlatdar, who was to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Section 58(2) Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - After Fifth Amendment, land used primarily for growing coconut trees fell within 'garden' under Section 2(7A); question of tenancy required to be decided by Mamlatdar under Section 7 - Court held High Court justified in setting aside trial court decree because bar became applicable when decree was passed after amendment, and no saving clause existed for pending suits. (Paras 1-4) B) Tenancy Law - Definition of 'Garden' - Section 2(7A) Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - Land used primarily for growing coconut trees included; after amendment Act applies to such lands; civil court jurisdiction ousted. (Paras 1-2) C) Statutory Interpretation - Applicability to Pending Suits - No express retrospective provision but amendment affected pending litigation where civil court would decide question within special forum jurisdiction; relied on Inacio Martines v. Narayan Hari Naik. (Paras 3-4) D) Procedural Direction - Transfer of Records to Mamlatdar - Court directed transfer of plaint, written statement and records from Civil Judge Senior Division Quepem to Mamlatdar; to decide within six months. (Paras 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decree an eviction suit after the Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 came into force during pendency, where the suit land was used primarily for growing coconut trees.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court order upheld; directed transfer of plaint, written statement and records from Civil Judge Senior Division Quepem to concerned Mamlatdar; Mamlatdar to decide within six months.
Law Points
- Fifth Amendment to Goa
- Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act
- 1964 applies to coconut gardens
- Civil Court jurisdiction barred by Section 58(2)
- Mamlatdar has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 7
- Pending suits affected absent saving clause
