Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal before the Bombay High Court at Goa arising from a dispute between the appellants (original defendants) and the respondents (original plaintiffs) concerning agricultural land. The appellants contended that the Trial Court failed to frame an issue regarding tenancy despite the pleadings raising such a question, and that both the Trial Court and the first appellate court ignored the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, which is a welfare legislation. The High Court admitted the appeal on 19.04.2007 on two substantial questions of law: (1) whether the Trial Court was bound to frame the issue of tenancy arising from the pleadings, and (2) whether the courts below were bound to consider the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, which prohibits any contract waiving tenancy rights. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, held that the Trial Court erred in not framing the tenancy issue and that the courts below failed to apply the welfare legislation. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration after framing the appropriate issue of tenancy.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Framing of Issues - Duty of Court - The Trial Court is bound to frame an issue of tenancy if the pleadings of the parties raise such a question, regardless of any contract purporting to waive tenancy rights - Held that failure to frame the issue vitiates the trial (Paras 2-3).
B) Agricultural Tenancy - Welfare Legislation - Waiver of Rights - The Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 is a welfare legislation and there cannot be any contract waiving the right of tenancy by the tenant - Held that the courts below were bound to consider the provisions of the Act (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was bound to frame an issue of tenancy arising from the pleadings, and whether the courts below were bound to consider the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 despite any contract waiving tenancy rights.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgments of the Trial Court and the first appellate court are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration after framing the appropriate issue of tenancy and deciding it in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Agricultural Tenancy Act
- 1964 is a welfare legislation
- no contract can waive tenant's rights
- court must frame issue of tenancy if raised in pleadings
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (08) 107
Second Appeal No. 27 of 2007
Mr. Amrut Kansar for the appellants, Mr. S. G. Desai (Senior Advocate) with Ms. K. Pednekar for respondent nos. 1 to 4
Rama Krishna Arolkar, Narayan Krishna Arolkar, Mrs. Malcom Krishna Arolkar (since deceased), Mrs. Sitabai Rama Arolkar (since deceased), Mrs. Laxmi Narayan Arolkar
Smt. Kumud alias Kusum Yeshwant Bhobe, Yogesh Vasudev Bhobe, Siddesh Govind Bhobe, Salil Vassudev Bhobe, Trivikram J. Bhobe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent findings of Trial Court and first appellate court in a suit concerning agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgments of the courts below and to have the issue of tenancy framed and decided.
Filing Reason
The Trial Court failed to frame an issue of tenancy despite the pleadings raising such a question, and the courts below ignored the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court and first appellate court decided against the appellants without considering the tenancy issue.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court was bound to frame the issue of tenancy arising out of the pleadings of the parties?
Whether the Trial Court and the first appellate Court were bound to take into consideration the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, which is a welfare legislation, and whether there could be any contract waiving the right of tenancy by the tenant?
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Amrut Kansar for the appellants argued that the Trial Court erred in not framing the tenancy issue and that the courts below failed to apply the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964.
Mr. S. G. Desai for the respondents opposed the appeal, but the judgment does not detail his arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
The Trial Court is bound to frame an issue of tenancy if the pleadings raise such a question, and the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 being a welfare legislation, no contract can waive the tenant's rights; the courts below must consider its provisions.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the learned Trial Court was not bound to frame the issue of tenancy arising out of the pleadings of the parties?
Whether the Trial Court and the first appellate Court were not bound to take into consideration the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 as amended from time to time which is a welfare legislation and there could not be any contract waiving the right of tenancy by the tenant?
Procedural History
The suit was originally filed in the Trial Court, which decided against the appellants. The first appeal to the District Court was dismissed. The appellants then filed the present second appeal before the High Court, which was admitted on 19.04.2007 on the substantial questions of law mentioned above.
Acts & Sections
- Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964:
