K S SATYPALA Vs. ALICE DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal had come up for hearing, in the first instance, before one of us (Sadanandaswamy, J.) and has been referred to a Division Bench under the proviso to S.6 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961, on the ground that the question of law involved in this appeal is an important one and that the decision thereon affects a large number of cases which have already been decided by subordinate Courts.

(2.) The appellant is defendant-1, respondent-1 is the plaintiff and respon- dent-2 is defendant-2 in the suit which was tried by the Civil Judge at Chickmagalur. The plaintiff's case is that he was the tenant of the suit land under defendant-1 who purported to sell it to defendant-2 without giving him (the plaintiff) the first option to purchase it as required by S.22 of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, and that defcndant-2 was trying to dispossess him (the plaintiff) from the suit land. He sought for a declaration that he was the tenant of the suit land for a permanent injunction restraining defcndant-2 from interfering with his lawful possession thereof. The first issue in the suit is whether the plaintiff is the tenant of the suit land. Both the Courts below concurrently held that issue in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. In this appeal, it was contended for the appellant that bv virtue of S.12 of the Mysore Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1970, (Mysore Act 6 of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to decide the question whether a person is a tenant, has been taken away with retrospective effect and that consequently the Courts below must be deemed to have had no jurisdiction to decide whether the plaintiff was the tenant of the suit land.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. M. Gopalakrishna Shetty, learned Counsel for rcspondent-1, contended that at the time when the learned Civil Judge decided the suit and the learned District Judge decided the appeal therefrom, Civil Courts had iurisdiction to decide such question, and that the Amendment Act cannot be construed as invalidating the decisions rendered by Civil Courts prior to the Amendment Act, when they had undoubted jurisdiction.