MRS. JUDITH FERNANDES AND ORS. versus CONCEICAO ANTONIO FERNANDESE AND ANR,

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 64 · Decided: 22-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MRS. JUDITH FERNANDES AND ORS. 
v. 
CONCEICAO ANTONIO FERNANDESE AND ANR, 
AUGUST 22, 1996 
[N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Goa, Daman and Diu, A~~icultural Tenancy Act, 1964: Serttions 7,58 
and 2( JA) a11d 2(7A) (As i11troduced by Fifth AmendmentAct)--Applicability 
of 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9--Bar to jurisdiction of Courts. 
Appellant-plai11tiff executing a lease deed in favour of 1·espondent-
def endant-Land in question containing coconut trees-Expiry of lease-Suit 
for eviction-Ame11dments introduced in 1964 Act during pe11dency of 
D suit-After amendment 'Garden' defined to include land used plima1ily for 
growing coconut trees-Suit decreed by Tlial Court and affinned by Appellate 
Court-High Court holding that Civil Court had no julisdiction to entertain 
suit after coming into force of the :tmendment Act-'-Appeal-Hield after the 
Amendment the provisio11s of the Act wer,e applicable ev_en in rewect of lands 
E growing coconut trees and the bar presc1ibed in section 58(2) became ap-
plicable--ln the present case Amendment Act came into force b~f ore passing 
of decree by Trial Court-771erej;1re, bar contained in section 5()(2) became 
applicable-Held High Cow1 was justified in setting aside the d[.icree passed 
by Courts below. 
F 
Union Tenitory of Goa, Daman and Diu v. Lakshmibai Narayan Patil 
& Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 102, referred to. 
Inacio Martines (d) through LRs. v. Narayan Hari Naik & Ors., [1993) 
3 sec 123, 1relied on. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1763 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.6.85 of the Bombay High 
Court in S.C.A. No. 20 of 1983. 
H 
Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Binu Tamta for the Appellants. 
64 
JUDITH FERNANDES v. CONCEICAO ANTONIO FERNANDES 
65 
Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, (V.D. Khanna) (NP) and S.K. Mehta A 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. On January 18, 1967 
the original plaintiff No. 1 executed a deed of lease for a period of six years B 
in favour of the defendant-Respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred 
to as the Respondent) in respect of the lands in question containing 
coconut trees. On May 5, 1972 notice of termination of the lease was given 
..> 
by the aforesaid plaintiff. There is no dispute that the Jease expired in 
January, 1973. On October 10, 1973 the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction c 
of the defendant. During the pendency of the said suit amendments were 
introduced in the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The amendments were introduced by 
the Fifth Amendment Act which came into force with effect from April 20, 
, 1976. The Trial Court decreed the suit which decree was affirmed by the 
Court of Appeal. However, the High Court on appeal filed by the defen-
D 
dant-respondent set aside the said decree saying that Civil Court had no 
jurisdiction to entertain the suit after coming into force of the Fifth 
Amendment Act. 
It may be mentioned that by the Amending Act aforesaid in Section 
2(1A) new definition of 'agriculture' was introduced. Section 2(7A) defined E 
'garden' to mean land used primarily for growing coconut trees, arecanut 
trees, cashew nut trees and mango trees. In view of aforesaid introduction 
of sub-section (7A) in Section 2 the expression 'garden' shall include the 
land used primarily for growi.1g coconut trees. Section 7 of the Act 
·provides that if any question arises whether any person is or was a tenant 
or should be deemed to be a tenant under this Act, the Mamlatdar shall, p· 
after holding an enquiry, decide such question. In view of section 8 of the 
Act no tenancy of any land shall be terminated and no person holding land 
as a tenant shall be liable to be evicted therefrom save as provided under 
the Act. Section 58 of the Act is as follows : 
..... 
"Bar to jurisdiction of Courts -
G 
(i) No suit or other proceeding shall lie against any person in 
respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be 
done under this Act. 
(ii) Save as provided in this Act-, no Court shall have jurisdiction H 
A 
B 
66 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under 
this Act required to bf: settled, decided or dealt with by the 
Mamlatdar, Tribunal, Collector or Government, and no order 
passe.d by these authorities under this Act shall be questioned in 
any Civil or

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.