IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2010 SHRI NAMDEV RAJARAM GAWDE AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI WAMAN SADASHIV JOSHI AND 25 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. P.S. Lotlikar, Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent nos. 4(a) to 4(g), 4(h), 5 to 9 and 11 to 14. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 20th April, 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. Plaintiffs' suit, inter alia, was for declaration that the Defendants have no right whatsoever to the suit property; for a declaration that the name of Vithal Kuso Gawde appearing in the cultivators column, should be deleted; and for permanent injunction. 3. An objection was taken on behalf of the Defendants based on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Madhumati Atchut Parab vs. Shri Rajaram V. Parab & Ors. (2009 (3) ALL M.R. 486), that the jurisdiction to decide the suit would be with the Mamlatdar. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners does not dispute in principle that a negative declaration can be granted by a Civil Court. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents have rightly submitted that in case the Defendants raise a plea that they are the tenants, then in that event, an issue may be required to be raised and referred to the Mamlatdar. That to me, appears to be a correct position in law and, in the light of that, no fault can be found with the impugned Order. 4. Civil Revision Application is, therefore, accordingly disposed of. N. A. BRITTO, J. arp/*