ARJUN MAHADEV MANJREKAR Vs. RAMCHANDRA CHIMNO PADWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 30th April, 1987, passed in appeal by the learned District Judge, Panaji.

(2.) The respondent herein has filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant, his agents, servants and representatives from cultivating or doing any act of cultivation in the suit property, and further, from interfering with his possession of the said property, on the grounds that there exists a property known as "Xendo" situated in the village of Mulgao. The said property is in a slope of a hill and is crossed by a road. The portion of the property situated at the higher level has a levelled portion of land which is used for cultivation of cereals like paddy, nachinim and other kinds of cereals. There are a few cashew trees in that portion. The part of the property which is at lower level has about 100 coconut trees and cashew trees, besides other fruit-bearing trees. The said property belonged to one Chimno Ramchandra Padwal, the father of the respondent The said Chimno entrusted, somewhere in the year 1955, the suit property to the appellant and allowed him to reside in a house which exists in the lower part of the property. Under the oral agreement of entrustment of the property, the respondent was entrusted with the duty of watching the coconut grove which was however being plucked by the respondent's family on the payment of 10% of the coconuts plucked to the appellant. The crop of the cashew grove was sold to the defendant yearly, the consideration being of 10 'maunds' of cashew nuts. So far as the higher portion of the coconut trees which is situated above the road, the same was to be cultivated by the appellant on the payment of 10 'khudos' of paddy as rent. However, according to the respondent, appellant never cultivated paddy in the said portion of the suit property, and therefore, no rent was paid. Similarly, as the number of the cashew trees was reduced, the rent of the cashew grove was also reduced. So far as the duties of watching the coconut trees, the said service was terminated and as from 1st January, 1973, a new watchman by name Lohu Mandekar was appointed. Inspite of this, the appellant raised a claim to be the tenant of a paddy field he alleges to exist in between the coconut and cashew trees existing in the lower portion of the property. He has been attempting to make such cultivation and hence, the suit.

(3.) The suit so framed was resisted by the appellant, mainly on the ground that the whole suit property was let out to him on 30th October, 1955 by the respondent's father who, in addition, allowed the appellant to reside in a house which exists in the lower part of the property. it is further the case of the appellant in his Written Statement that it is true that the coconut trees existing in the lower portion of the property were being plucked by the respondent, and that since the subject-matter of the suit is governed by the Goa, Daman and Diu Agriculture Tenancy Act, 1964, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.