BHIMAJI SHANKER KULKARNI versus DUNDAPPA VITHAPPA UDAPUDI AND ANR.

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 05-05-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
• 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
•. 
ff 
14S 
BHIMAJI SHANKER KULKARNI 
v. 
DUNDAPPA VITHAPPA UDAPUDI AND ANR. 
May 5, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.) 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bon1. Act LXVIJ 
of 1943), s. 85(1)-Civil Court"s jurisdiction barred in respect of matters 
to be dealt -y,:ith by n1am/atdar-Claim of being a rprotected tenant' under 
the Act-To be decided under s. ?O(b) by mamlatdar-Suit where such a 
clainz made in defendant's written statement whether barred under 
s. 85(1). 
The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit in the civil court for the posses-
sion of suit properties on redemption of a mortgage and 
the taking of 
accounts on the allegation that defendant No. 1 was the 
usufructuary 
mortgagee under a mortgage deed. 
The defendants 
pleaded that the 
transaction in question was an advance lease and not a mortgage and that 
they were "protected" tenants within the meaning of the Bombay Tenancy 
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Under s. 70(b) of the Act it was one 
of the duties of the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person was a 'pro-
tected' tenant. 
Under s. 85(1) of the Act the jurisdiction of the civil 
court was barred in respect of matters which fell to be decided by 
the 
mamlatdar. The trial court held that the document in question was a 
composite document comprising of a mortgage and a lease, that the mort-
gage debt having been paid the mortgage stood redeen1ed, and that the 
plaintiff was at liberty to seek his remedy of pos~ssion in the revenue 
courts. The first appellate court held that the· civil court had no juris-
diction to determine whether defendant No. 1 \Vas a mortgagee in posses-
sion or a tenant, but confirmed the trial court's finding that the n1ortgage 
debt stood redeemed. The High Court in plaintiff's second appeal held 
that the 1ower appellate court having correctly held that the civH court 
had no jurisdiction to interpret the document executed between the parties, 
ought not to have taken the accountl) treating the document as a mortgage. 
It asked the trial court to refer the issue as to the nature of the trans·ac-
tion to the mamlatdar. 
The plaintiff filed a Letters Patent Appeal and 
that also having failed, he appealed ;to the Supreme Court, by special 
le:!,ve. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the jurisdiction of a 
civil court depends on the allegations made in the plaint and the plea in 
the written statement that the defendants were 'protected' tenants did not 
oust jurisdiction of the civil court. 
HELD: (i) The Mamlatdar has exclusive jurisdiction under the Act 
to entertain an application by a landlord for possession of agricultural 
lands again·st a tenant, and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain 
and try a suit by a landlord against a tenant for possession of agricultural 
lands. The Mamlatdar has no jurisdiction to try a sutt by a landowner 
fer recovering of possession of agricultural lands 
from a trespasser or 
from a mortgagee on Jedemption of a mortgage, and the civil court has 
no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit; but if the defendant to the suit 
pleads that he is a tenant and an issue arises whether he is such a tenant, 
the Court must refer the issue to the Mamlatdar for determination and 
must stay the suit pending such determination, and after the Mamlatdar 
has decided the issue, the coutt may dispose of the suit in the light of the 
decision of the Mamlatdar. [149 E-H] 
146 
SUPJU!Yll 
COURT 
REPORTS 
(1966) l S.C.R. 
Dhondi T11karam v. Hari Dadu, I.L.R. 1953 Bom. 969, approved. 
Mudugere Ra11gaiah v. M. Rangaiah, 1.1..R. 1959 Mysore, 420, distin-
sui.•hed. 
(ii) The High Court had jurisdiction to set aside the iinding of the 
trial court that nothing v.:as due hy the plaintiff to the defendants. 
The 
first appellate court had given inconsistent findings. 
The High Court bad 
ample power 10 currect the error arising therefrom. [152 D-EJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 270 oi. 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
December 7, 1959 of the Mysore High Court in Second Appeal 
(B) No. 184 of 1956. 
S. G. Pa11vardhan, S. N. Prasad, /. B. Dadachanji, for 
the 
appellant. 
R. Gopa/ai;ris/man, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Baehawat, .I. 
On April 19, 1951, the plaintiff-appellant in~ti· 
tuted a suit in the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior 
Division at Bagalkot, for posse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.