CHONDRU UPASSO GAONKAR Vs. ZORGO GAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner failed to get injunction in two Courts below and challenges the said orders in this Revision. The Petitioner claims to be deemed owner of the suit paddy field under Survey No. 9/9 by virtue of having paid purchase price of the same in terms of Sec. 18-C of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the said Act). The purchase price was paid on 19.8.1994 in pursuance of order dated 25.2.1994 under Sec. 18-C of the said Act. The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent was trespasser in relation to the suit paddy field and since he was interfering with the -possession of the petitioner, he filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Respondent. The Respondent claimed to be tenant of the suit paddy field.

(2.) The trial Court rejected the temporary injunction application on the ground that the Respondent had filed an application under Sec. 7 of the Tenancy Act in respect of the suit paddy field wherein stay had been granted on 5.8.1994 by the Mamlatdar staying the proceedings under Sec. 18-C of the said Act on account of which the trial Judge thought it fit not to interfere in the matter. The appellate Court went on the ground of suppression of the Stay Order dated 5.8.1994 by the Petitioner which was only disclosed in rejoinder. The appellate Court also held that the payment of purchase price after the said Stay Order would render the said payment made under Sec. 18-C as illegal and, consequently, it could not be said that the Petitioner had become deemed owner.

(3.) It has been urged before me by learned Advocate Shri C.A. Coutinho for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had no notice of Stay Order dated 5.8.1994 and on account of payment of the purchase price, he became deemed owner; that, even otherwise, in Forms I & XIV, the name of the Petitioner was shown as tenant and the landlord of the suit paddy field has sworn an affidavit in favour of the Petitioner that he is the tenant. He contends that no notice had been received by the Petitioner regarding stay granted on 5.8.1994 in respect of suit paddy field Survey No. 9/9, Civil Revision Application No of 1996 but that the Petitioner has received notice in respect of Survey No. 7/16 in proceedings filed by the Respondent under Sec. 7 of the said Act. He, therefore, states that there was no material suppression of any fact which would have any material bearing in the matter and the appellate Court was not justified in rejecting temporary injunction on the ground of suppression of fact. It was also pointed out by him that though the Respondent claims that Survey No. 9/9 and Survey No. 9/6 are part of one property, but it is pertinent to note that Survey No.9/6 does not touch any of the boundaries of Survey No. 9/9. According to him, Petitioner is entitled to injunction on the basis of overwhelming evidence produced by the Petitioner and, as such, injunction may be granted in favour of the Petitioner.