MARYBAI MARSHAL PIMENTA Vs. RAMNATH GOPAL BHUSKUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by a learned single Judge. The short question that arises in the case is : Has the Civil Court jurisdiction to protect the possession of a party to the suit when he claims to be in possession in his capacity as the tenant either while making the reference or pending the reference under S.85A, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) In the present case, the plaintiffs claim to be the tenants of an agricultural land situate at Dhovali, Taluka Vasai, District Thane. It is also claimed by them that they were entitled to be declared as statutory purchasers of the suit land under the provisions of the Act. However, for some reasons the proceedings for fixation of the price of the land which are once commenced were subsequently dropped. They claim to be in possession of the land since many years prior to the suit and have approached the Court since the defendant-landlords are trying to interfere with the possession. It also appears that the proceedings under S.145, Cr. P.C. had preceded the suit and an order of attachment of the land was also passed by the Taluka Magistrate in the said proceedings. The defendants had claimed that possession of the land was taken over by the Magistrate from the plaintiffs under the said order of attachment, which claim is however contested by the plaintiffs.

(3.) The trial Court as well as the Appeal Court have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved their possession. However, an interim injunction claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to protect the possession was refused by them solely on the ground that in view of the provisions of S.85A of the Act the issue as to whether the plaintiffs were tenants of the suit land could not be decided by the Civil Court and had to be referred to the Tenancy Authorities for their decision.