JUDITH FERNANDES Vs. CONCEICAO ANTONIO FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. On January 18,1967 the original plaintiff No. 1 executed a deed of lease for a period of six years in favour of the defendant-Respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) in respect of the lands in question containing coconut trees. On May 5,1972 notice of termination of the lease was given by the aforesaid plaintiff. There is no dispute that the lease expired in January, 1973. On October 10,1973 the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant. During the pendency of the said suit amendments were introduced in the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The amendments were introduced by the Fifth Amendment Act which came into force with effect from April 20,1976. The Trial court decreed the suit which decree was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. However, the High Court on appeal filed by the defendent-respondent set aside the said decree saying that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit after coming into force of the Fifth Amendment Act.

(2.) It may be mentioned that by the Amending Act aforesaid in Section 2(1-A) new definition of 'agriculture' was introduced. Section 2 (7-A) defined 'garden' to mean land used primarily for growing coconut trees, arecanut trees, cashew nut trees and mango trees. In view of aforesaid introduction sub-section (7-A) in Section 2 the expression 'garden' shall include the land used primarily for growing coconut trees. Section 7 of the Act provides that if any question arises whether any person is or was a tenant or should be deemed to be a tenant under this Act, the Mamlatdar shall, after holding an enquiry, decide such question. In view of Section 8 of the Act to tenancy of any land shall be terminated and no person holding land as a tenant shall be liable to be evicted therefrom save as provided under the Act. Section 58 of the Act is as follows:-

(3.) In view of sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Act, no Court has jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar, Tribunal, Collector or Government. It can be said that aforesaid sub-section (2) of Section 58 prescribes a bar on the power of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for settling, deciding or dealing with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar, Tribunal, Collector or Government.