PALMIRA VALADARES Vs. INACIO MARIANO DIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point which is sought to be raised for determination in the present petition is whether in a suit for permanent injunction filed by a person claiming to be a tenant in respect of a property against another person claiming to be the tenant in respect of the same property would lie before the Mamlatdar under Agricultural Tenancy Act or not.

(2.) IT i. s the case of the petitioner that he is a tenant in possession of a property bearing Survey No. 280/1 and 288/1 of the village of Carambolim and that the property belongs to the Comunidade of Carambolim. The petitioner further claims to have been declared as the tenant by the Mamlatdar under section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter called as the said Act) by his order dated 15-7-1992. The respondents Nos. 1 toll filed a civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 167/92 for injunction against the petitioner in respect of the same property while setting up a claim of tenancy over the said property. It was the contention of the respondents that the order dated 15-7-1992 of the Mamlatdar declaring the petitioner as the tenant was obtained by the petitioner in collusion with the Comunidade of Carambolim. Along with the suit the respondent also filed application for injunction. The suit was contested by the petitioner inter alia submitting that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and the jurisdiction vests with the Mamlatdar. The Civil Court vide its order dated 13-11-1992 refused the relief of temporary injunction on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which order in an appeal against the same was confirmed by the Additional District Judge by his order dated 19-8-1994. In the Civil Revision Application No. 138/94 filed by the respondent against the said order of the Additional District Judge, the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the same while holding that the jurisdiction to entertain the same for perpetual injunction between two persons claiming to be tenants of the suit property vests with the Civil Court and under section 8-A of the said Act only the disputes between the tenant and the landlord are contemplated and as such the disputes between two persons claiming to b6 tenants are outside the purview of section 8-A of the said Act.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed application under section 8-A of the said Act before the Mamlatdar complaining interference by the respondent in the said property along with application for temporary injunction. The Mamlatdar by his order dated 5-2-1993 granted ex parte temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in the said property. However in the appeal filed against the said order being the Appeal No. TNC/apl/11/93 the Deputy Collector on the basis of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 138 of 1994 set aside the order of the Mamlatdar.