LexGUNDAJI SATWAJI SHINDE versus RAMCHANDRA BHIKAJI JOSHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
586 A GUNDAJI SATWAJI SHINDE v. RAMCHANDRA BHIKAJI JOSHI December 5, 1978 B [P. N. SIUNGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Born. Act LXVII of 1948)-&. 63, 70, 85 & 85A-S. 70 made Mamlatdar authority to decide whe· ther a person ·was an agriculturist-s. SSA barred jurisdiction of civil court in questions arising under s. 70--Suit for specific perfonnance of sale of agricul· tural land in civil court-Civil court lvhcthcr ·cotnpetent to decide incidental C question if vendee is an agriculturist. D .F G B Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 prohi· bits the sale of agricultural land to a person who is not an agriculturist. One of the duties of the Mamlatdar, under s. 70. of the Act, is to decide whether a person is an agriculturist and "\ivhether a transfer or acquisition of land i5 invalid being in contravention of the Act. Section 85 bars the jurisdiction of a civil court to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act i3 required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar, or the autho- rity 1nentioned in the section. The Bombay High Court in a case coming before it on the interpretation of 1. 85 held that \\'here in a suit in a civil court an issue arises which has to be decided under the provisions of s. 70, the civil court should refer the parties to the competent authority under the Tenancy Act to get the question decided ~nJ such c;ecision \vculd be binding on the civil court. Taking note of this deci- sion s. S5i\. \\'as added to the Tenancy Act, enabling the civil court to iefer the issue to fi:1e competent authority to decide which the jurisdiction of the civil court iR- barred under s. 85. The plaintiff's ~uit for ~pecific performance of a contract for sale of land w~ re~istcd by the defendant alleging that since he (the plaintiff), was not an a~riculturist, he was prohibited by s. 63 of the Tenancy Act from purchasing agricultural 1and and the contract being contrary to the provisions o! the Act is not capable of being specifically enforced. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he 'vas not an agriculturist. It held that the issue \Vhethcr or not the plaintiff was an agri- culturist being: incidental in a suit for specific performance of a contract the civil court had jurisdiction to decide such incidental issues. On app~ul the High Court held that the civil court which had jurisdiction to entertain a :>uit for specific performance, it would have jurisdiction to decide the incidental issue whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist or not. The question before the Supreme Court was where in a suit for specific per- formance, an issue arose whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist or not on the date of agreement whether the civil court would have jurisdiction to decide the issue or it is required to refer it to the ~famlatdar under s. 70 read with s. SSA. Allowing the appeal and remitting the case to the trial court for· disposal. • • G. S. SIITNDE V. R, B. JOSHI 587 HELD : 1. The Legislature having expressly ousted the juri:i;diction of the civil court to settle, decide or deal with any question \1.rhich is by or under the Tenancy Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any of the authorities therein mentioned the authority to decide the issue whether the vendee was an agricul- turist would be the Mamlatdar as provided in s. 70(a). [592 G] 2. Th,~ expression "any issues which are required to be settled, decided or dealt \\'ith by any authority competent to settle, decide or deal with such issues under this Act" in s. 85A would only mean that, if upon contest an issue which is required To be settled, dec;dcd and dealt with by the competent authority under the Tenancy ,\ct o.rfr.;es, notwithstanding the fact that such an issue arises in a properly constitulcd civil suit cognizable by the civil court, it would have to b'c referred to the competent authority under the Tenancy Act. [594H-595 Bl 3. Ii.Jere because jurisdiction is conferred on the Mamlatdar to decide whe- ther a person is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Tenancy Act, it does not ipso facto oust the jurisdiction of the civil conrt to decide that i'lsue if it arises b<:fore it in a civil suit. Unless the },1amla~dar is const~~utcd an exclusive forum to dc·.::de the question, conf~rn1cnt of su::h juri~dtction \\.Ould not oust
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.