The Supreme Court in the case Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule (D) By Lrs. And Anr. v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar (D) By Lrd. And Anr, wherein the division bench comprising of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal in the case observed and has reiterated that ouster of jurisdiction of civil court can be expressed or implied, but it cannot have a retrospective effect for annulling a decree which is validly passed by the civil court.
In the present case, the bench was hearing an appeal which is filed against an order passed by Bombay High Court (Goa), wherein it has been affirmed by the court the concurrent judgment of courts below ordering eviction of a tenant, wherein it is claimed mundakar rights in respect of the suit property.
It has been claimed by the original appellant that a house is to be constructed in a plot of land over which he had mundakar rights. A civil suit has been filed by the landlords for declaration and eviction in 1970 seeking eviction of the appellant. Therefore, the trial court decreed the suit and directed delivery of possession on April 21, 1975 wherein seeking eviction in 1970 seeking eviction of the appellant. Thus, the appellant filed the first level appeal. The court while noting that there being no perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below. The second appeal made was dismissed by the High Court. The counsel, Advocate, Ms. Ananya Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted before the court that under Section 2(p) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundakars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, the said appellant being a mundakar and the landlords admitted the same. It has also been emphasized by her that Section 31(2) of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court. It has also been argued before the court that the civil court had passed the order of eviction without jurisdiction. The bench also noted that the argument of the Counsel holds no merit a suit has been filed by the landlords in 1970. The court passed the order decreeing the suit was passed on March 21, 1975, while on 12.03.1976, the said Act came into the force. The bench observed that it being a settled law that ouster of jurisdiction of civil court can be expressed or be implied but it cannot have retrospective effect annulling a decree validly passed by the civil court. Thus, the said court do not find any error of law on the part of the High Court in confirming the concurrent judgment and decrees of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court.
