Recently, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court made up of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal underlined that while the civil court's authority may be explicitly or implicitly revoked, such action cannot retroactively invalidate a judgement that was lawfully issued by the civil court. 

The Bombay High Court (Goa) judgement, which upheld the concurrent judgement of courts below ordering the eviction of a tenant who asserted mundakar rights in regard to the suit property, was the subject of an appeal before the Bench.

The appellant's attorney, Ms. Ananya Mukherjee, stated that the landlords had acknowledged the appellant's status as a mundakar in accordance with Section 2(p) of the Goa, Daman, and Diu Mundakars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. She emphasised that the civil court has no authority under Section 31(2) of the Act. Due to this, it was claimed that the civil court lacked jurisdiction when it issued the eviction order. 

The Court noted that the landlords had filed their lawsuit in 1970; the ruling deciding the case was issued on March 21, 1975, and the Act took effect on March 12, 1976, negating the Counsel's claim. In light of the aforementioned, the Bench noted:

“It is settled law that ouster of jurisdiction of civil court can be expressed or implied, but it cannot have retrospective effect annulling a decree validly passed by the civil court. Therefore, we 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.”

Case Title: Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule (D) By Lrs. And Anr. v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar (D) By Lrd. And Anr.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3936 of 2013

Appearance of the Advocates:-

For Appellant(s) 
Ms. Ananya Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv.
Ms. Shipra Ghose, AOR