Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.45/04 for partition of property surveyed under No.137/2 of Bordem Village, challenged the order dated 4/06/2007 of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division. The suit property was claimed to be owned in equal shares by the plaintiffs, defendants nos.1 to 5, defendants nos.6 to 7, and defendants nos.8 to 12. The plaintiffs sought partition and also challenged inventory proceedings no.8/92/A in which defendants nos.8 to 12 obtained half share. Defendants nos.10 and 11 raised a claim that they were tenants of half of the suit property, asserting that within survey no.137/2 there were two properties, one of which they owned and the other they held as tenants. The Civil Judge referred the tenancy claim to the Mamlatdar under Section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, holding that the issue of tenancy was not incidental to the partition suit and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the reference. The court reasoned that the defendants had produced documents such as Form I and XIV showing their names as tenants, establishing a prima facie case. The Act excludes civil court jurisdiction over tenancy disputes, and the Mamlatdar is the appropriate authority to decide such claims. The court found no error in the Civil Judge's order and dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reference to Revenue Authorities - Section 7 of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - Tenancy Claim in Partition Suit - The Civil Judge referred the tenancy claim of defendants to the Mamlatdar for decision, holding that the issue of tenancy was not incidental to the partition suit. The High Court upheld the order, noting that the defendants had raised a bona fide claim of tenancy and the civil court lacked jurisdiction to decide tenancy disputes under the Act. (Paras 2-6) B) Tenancy Law - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 7 of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - Exclusion of Civil Court Jurisdiction - The Act provides that all questions relating to tenancy shall be decided by the Mamlatdar, and civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain such disputes. The court held that the reference was proper as the tenancy claim was not a mere incidental issue but a substantive matter under the Act. (Paras 4-6) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Prima Facie Case - The court noted that the defendants had produced documents such as Form I and XIV showing their names as tenants, which established a prima facie case of tenancy. The burden was on the plaintiffs to disprove the tenancy, but the civil court could not decide that issue. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Judge Junior Division was justified in referring the tenancy claim raised by defendants to the Mamlatdar under Section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, without deciding the issue of tenancy itself.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Civil Judge referring the tenancy claim to the Mamlatdar. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tenancy claim
- Reference to Mamlatdar
- Civil Court jurisdiction
- Partition suit
- Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act
- Section 7
- Prima facie case
- Burden of proof
