Case Note & Summary
The case involves a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) against the defendants (petitioners) in respect of a property in Goa. The suit property originally belonged to Ganesh and Vimlabai Naik. According to the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 was allowed to occupy a portion of the farm house temporarily in 1978 on payment of monthly compensation of Rs.50/-, which he paid until December 1984 and then stopped. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were licensees and after revocation of license, they became trespassers. The defendants filed an application in 2008 seeking framing of two issues: whether the defendants were mundkars under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, and whether they were tenants under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and referring those issues to the Mamlatdar for decision. The Civil Judge dismissed the application, holding that the issues were not substantial and could be decided by the civil court. The defendants filed a writ petition challenging that order. The High Court examined the pleadings and found that the defendants had not raised any claim of mundkarship or tenancy in their written statement; the application was an afterthought. The court held that the reference to the Mamlatdar is not automatic and the civil court has discretion to decide whether the issue is substantial. Since the defendants had not pleaded these rights and the issues were not substantial, the Civil Judge was justified in dismissing the application. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reference to Mamlatdar - Framing of Issues - The defendants sought framing of issues regarding mundkarship and tenancy and reference to Mamlatdar under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 and the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - The Civil Judge dismissed the application holding that the issues were not substantial and could be decided by the civil court - The High Court upheld the order, noting that the defendants had not pleaded mundkarship or tenancy in their written statement and the claim was an afterthought - Held that the reference to the Mamlatdar is not automatic and the civil court has discretion to decide whether the issue is substantial (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Judge was justified in dismissing the defendants' application for framing issues of mundkarship and tenancy and referring them to the Mamlatdar for decision.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Order of the Civil Judge dated 21/7/2009 upheld.
Law Points
- Mundkarship
- Tenancy
- Reference to Mamlatdar
- Civil Court jurisdiction
- Goa
- Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act
- 1975
- Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act
- 1964
