9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the transaction dated June 28, 1945 (whether it was a mortgage or a lease). 2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court versus the Mamlatdar in determining the status of the defendants (whether they were mortgagees or protected tenants). 3. Application of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 4. Validity of the lower courts' decisions and the High Court's jurisdiction to set aside findings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Transaction: The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession of the suit properties on redemption of a mortgage, alleging that defendant No. 1 was the usufructuary mortgagee under a mortgage deed dated June 28, 1945 (Ex. 43). The defendants contended that the transaction was an advance lease and not a mortgage, claiming they were 'protected' tenants under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The trial court found the deed to be a composite document comprising both a mortgage and a lease, determining that the mortgage was fully redeemed, and allowed the plaintiff to seek possession through the Revenue Courts. 2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court versus the Mamlatdar: The first appellate court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine whether defendant No. 1 was a mortgagee in possession or a tenant. It directed the trial court to refer the issue to the Tenancy Court (Mamlatdar) for determination. The High Court confirmed that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to interpret the document as either a mortgage or a lease and directed the trial court to refer the issue to the Mamlatdar. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the Mamlatdar has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a person is a tenant or a protected tenant under the Act. 3. Application of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: The Act defines "permanent tenants," "tenants," and "protected tenants" and provides that possession of agricultural land by a landlord from a tenant can only be obtained through an order of the Mamlatdar. Section 85(1) of the Act expressly bars Civil Courts from settling, deciding, or dealing with any question required to be settled or decided by the Mamlatdar. Section 85A, introduced by Bombay Act XIII of 1956, mandates that any issue arising in a suit that falls under the Mamlatdar's jurisdiction must be referred to the Mamlatdar for determination. The Supreme Court confirmed that the combined effect of Sections 29, 70, 85, and 85A is that the Mamlatdar has exclusive jurisdiction over tenancy issues, and Civil Courts must refer such issues to the Mamlatdar. 4. Validity of Lower Courts' Decisions and High Court's Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court addressed the appellant's contention that the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the finding of the first appellate court that "nothing is due by the plaintiff to the defendants under the transaction, Exhibit 43." The Supreme Court found no substance in this contention, noting that the first appellate court recorded inconsistent findings. Since the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine the nature of the transaction, it should have stayed the suit pending the Mamlatdar's decision. The High Court had the authority to correct this error and set aside the inconsistent finding. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts and the High Court. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that the Mamlatdar has exclusive jurisdiction to determine tenancy issues under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the Civil Court must refer such issues to the Mamlatdar for determination.
|
