Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to a piece of land bearing Survey No. 308/1 in Mandrem Village, Goa. The petitioner, Lawrence Jose Fernandes, claimed to be a tenant of the southern half of the property under the landlords (respondents 12 and 13). Respondents 1 to 11 also claimed tenancy over the entire property. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents to restrain them from interfering with his possession. The trial court, on an application by respondents 1 to 11, passed an order dated 24 March 2016 deleting the landlords (respondents 12 and 13) and the issue of tenancy from the suit. The petitioner challenged this order in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner's father was allegedly a tenant of the southern portion since before 1951 under the predecessors of respondents 12 and 13. The petitioner continued the tenancy and sought to protect his possession. Respondents 1 to 11 claimed tenancy over the entire survey number and had previously been involved in litigation including tenancy cases and criminal proceedings, where they had been recognized as tenants. They contended that the petitioner had no right. In the plaint, the petitioner stated that respondents 12 and 13 did not dispute his tenancy. Respondents 1 to 11 applied to delete respondents 12 and 13 and the tenancy issue, which the trial court allowed. The core legal questions were whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction over a suit for injunction between two rival tenants, whether the tenancy issue must be referred to the Mamlatdar under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, and whether the landlords were necessary parties. The petitioner argued that the tenancy issue was implicit and needed to be tried, relying on Bhagwanrao Auti, and that the landlords were necessary parties. Respondents 1 to 11 relied on Palmira Valadares to argue that the Civil Court had jurisdiction and that since the landlords did not dispute the tenancy, no issue arose. They also cited Anathula Sudhakar to contend that in a suit for injunction, the issue of title need not be decided. The High Court examined the precedents. In Palmira Valadares, it was held that a suit for perpetual injunction between two rival tenants lies before the Civil Court because Section 8-A of the Agricultural Tenancy Act only bars jurisdiction in disputes between tenant and landlord. The court distinguished Bhagwanrao Auti, noting that while it held that a tenancy issue might be implicit in an injunction suit, the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Anathula Sudhakar clarified that in a suit for injunction based on title, the issue of title need not be decided; however, the court found that Anathula Sudhakar did not apply to tenancy disputes. The court observed that since the landlords (respondents 12 and 13) did not dispute the petitioner's tenancy, no triable issue of tenancy existed for reference to the Mamlatdar. Nevertheless, the landlords were necessary parties because their presence was required to determine the tenancy claim, and their deletion was a jurisdictional error. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the trial court's order. The suit was restored with all parties and issues intact, and the trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Civil Court has jurisdiction over suit for perpetual injunction between two persons claiming to be tenants - Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, Section 8-A - Dispute between rival tenants is not a dispute between tenant and landlord, hence Section 8-A does not oust Civil Court jurisdiction - Held that suit simpliciter for injunction between rival tenants is maintainable before Civil Court (Paras 6-8). B) Tenancy Law - Reference to Mamlatdar - Issue of tenancy arises only when there is assertion by one party and denial by another; if landlord does not dispute tenancy, no issue for reference - Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, Section 7 - Plaintiff claimed tenancy and pleaded that landlords did not dispute it, thus no triable tenancy issue existed for reference - Held that trial court's deletion of tenancy issue was premature and erroneous as the court could not pre-empt whether a tenancy dispute might arise; necessary to keep issue alive (Paras 4-5, 9). C) Civil Procedure - Necessary Parties - Landlords (defendants 12 and 13) were necessary parties as they were co-owners and their presence was essential to determine tenancy claim - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I - They were not merely formal parties but had a material interest in the outcome - Held that deletion of necessary parties was a jurisdictional error (Paras 2, 4, 9). D) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 - High Court can interfere where order of trial court suffers from jurisdictional error - Constitution of India, Article 227 - Trial court's order deleting defendants and issue of tenancy was based on erroneous application of law and caused failure of justice - Held that impugned order quashed, writ petition allowed (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in deleting the respondents no.12 and 13 and the issue of tenancy in a suit for permanent injunction between rival tenants, and whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain such a suit
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24/03/2016 is quashed and set aside. The trial court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Suit for perpetual injunction between rival tenants is maintainable in Civil Court
- Section 8-A of the Goa
- Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act
- 1964 not available against a person other than the landlord
- Issue of tenancy arises only when there is assertion by one party and denial by another
- In a suit for injunction where plaintiff claims tenancy and landlord does not dispute it no issue of tenancy arises for reference
- Landlords are necessary parties in a suit where plaintiff claims tenancy under them
- High Court under Article 227 can interfere where trial court committed jurisdictional error in deleting necessary parties
