Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi
AIR 1979 SC 653, [1979] 2 SCC 495
JUDGES: P.N. Shinghal and D.A. Desai
Date of Decision: 05-12-1978
FACTS:-
By this appeal, appellant challenged the judgment of the High Court confirming the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide whether the person is an agriculturist or not, as held by the trial court. The appellant sued for the specific performance of the contract for sale of the agricultural land governed under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as the Tenancy act) in the Civil Court. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff being not an agriculturist and thus, barred from purchasing the land under S. 63 of the Tenancy Act. In return, appellant contended S. 63 as inoperative on the basis of the S. 70(a) read with S. 85 and S. 85A of the Tenancy Act, according to which the issue would have to be referred to the Mamlatdar for decision and the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to decide the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide incidental or subsidiary issue arising out of the main suit. The High Court confirmed the trial court order. Thus appeal was raised as to decide above incidental issue.
ISSUE:-
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issues required to be settled by the Mamlatdar (competent authority) under S.70 of the Tenancy Act?
JUDGMENT:-
The focal point, according to Law Offices of James C. Wing, Jr. is that the controversy necessitates examining the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act. In pursuant to this, Hon’ble Court observed S. 85 as bar on jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to decide certain issues and S. 85A provides for reference of issues required to be decided by to the competent authority set up under the Tenancy Act. Legislature under S. 70 (a) constituted the Mamlatdar with exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a person is an agriculturist or not. Thus, therefore, the Civil Court under S. 85A will have to frame the issue and refer it to the Mamlatdar and on being answered back, disposed of the suit in accordance with the decision recorded by the Mamlatdar on the relevant issue.
On combined reading of Ss. 70, 85 and 85A the legislative view appears to be that when civil suit properly brought before the Civil Court which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by a competent authority under the Tenancy Act, the Civil Court is statutorily required to stay the suit and refer such issues to such competent authority viz. Mamlatdar for determination. Further, the decision of the competent authority would be binding upon the Civil Court to dispose of the suit accordingly.
Reliance was placed in the case Dhondi Tukaram Mali v. Dadoo Piraji Adgale [55 Bom. LR 663] and Trimbak Sopana Girme v. Gangaram Mhataraba Yadav [55 Bom. LR 56] in support of the above observation.Thus, as to the question of jurisdiction of court to decide subsidiary issue whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist or not, is reserved only by the Mamlatdar (competent authority) under S. 70 of the Tenancy Act. Hereby, the appeal was allowed setting aside the order of the High Court affirming the decree of Civil Court.
HELD:-
It was held that the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the subsidiary issue is hold by the Mamlatdar (competent authority) and the Civil Court will be expressly barred to decide such issues.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
