IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2010 SHRI. SURESH SUKDO BANDODKAR ALIAS SURESH BANDODKAR ... Appellant Versus SHRI. SAKARAM DAKUNI KERKAR AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar with Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocates for the appellant. Shri Surendra G. Bhobe with Ms. Pimento, Advocates for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 26th November, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 23rd October, 2008 passed by the District Judge, III, North Goa, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.48/2008 dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17th April, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge, J.D., Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No.137/2001/D by which the suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff seeking permanent and mandatory injunction and demolition against the respondent was dismissed. 3. The plaintiff filed the above suit claiming to be the tenant in respect of the suit property which is admittedly an agricultural property seeking reliefs against respondents, who are the purchasers of the property and who claim through the landlord. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the decree of the trial Court has been maintained by the appellate Court. 4. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the landlord has admitted the tenancy of the appellant/ plaintiff and therefore, both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 5. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that on the plaintiff's own showing that he is claiming to be the tenant in respect of the suit property, the suit filed against the respondents is not maintainable. According to Mr. Bhobe, since the plaintiff was claiming relief against the respondents who are claiming through the landlord, the appellant/ plaintiff ought to have approached the Mamlatdar and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jose Maria Florence Xavier Cassiano Luis Vs. Vassudeo Budhu Morajkar; 1999(1) Goa L.T. 314. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with the impugned judgments and decrees. The plaintiff claims to be the tenant of the suit property and filed the suit against the persons, who claim through landlord. This being the position, in my considered opinion, the Civil Court is not an appropriate forum and the plaintiff ought to have approached the Mamlatdar for seeking appropriate reliefs. In the case of Jose Maria Florence (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the tenant of the agricultural land cannot file suit against the landlord with an apprehension of dispossession unless the tenancy is either undisputed or declared by competent authority. The ratio of the said judgment with which I respectfully agree would be squarely applicable in the present case although the plaintiff is claiming relief against the persons, who are claiming through the landlord. In so far as the submission of Mr. Mulgaonkar that the landlord has admitted the tenancy of the appellant/ plaintiff is concerned, the same is not supported by any material on record. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees. In any case, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA