Ouster of civil court jurisdiction cannot have retrospective effect of annulling decree validly passed by it: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the ouster of civil court's jurisdiction by a statute cannot have a retrospective effect of annulling a decree validly passed by a civil court before the change in law [Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule (D) By LRs and Another v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar (D) By LRs and Another]..In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the Act that had barred the civil court's jurisdiction, had come into force only in 1976, after a trial court had passed its 1975 decree allowing a civil suit for eviction.Hence, the trial court decree and the subsequent High Court orders affirming the decree were upheld by the Supreme Court. "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," the top Court reasoned..A division bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal made the observation while dismissing an appeal against a Bombay High Court decision concerning property rights. .The Bombay High Court had upheld a trial court decree for the eviction of the appellant, who had claimed to have acquired mundkar rights in respect of some property. .On the other hand, a civil suit was filed in 1970 by the landlord-respondent for the eviction of the appellant. In 1975, a trial court decreed the suit in favour of the landlord and ordered the appellant to deliver possession of the land to the landlord. Appeals filed by the appellant before the Bombay High Court were dismissed, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court..Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that Section 31(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundakars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (the Act) had barred the jurisdiction of the civil court in such matters. It was also highlighted that the appellant was a mundkar, within the definition of Section 2(p) of the Act. Hence, the appellant contended that all the courts below had violated Section 31 (2) of the Act in exercising jurisdiction over the case. .However, since the Act was not in force when the trial court pronounced its decree, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the trial court as well as the concurring decisions of the Bombay High 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," the Court said while dismissing the appeal. .[Read Judgment]