Judgment Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above appeal has been admitted by this Court by order dated 1/09/2006 on the following substantial question of law: Whether in view of issue no.1, viz. “the Defendants prove that they are deemed owners of the paddy field surveyed under no.219/37 of village Quelossim, Taluka Mormugao, Goa”, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Judge to refer the same to the Mamlatdar for decision, in view of the provisions of G.D.D. Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and whether the failure on the part of the lower Courts below to do so, have vitiated the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents had filed the suit against the appellants inter alia for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering in any manner in the suit property which is surveyed under no.219/37. The said suit was filed on the basis of a purchase sanad obtained by the respondents from the Communidade of Quelossim. 4. The appellants who were served in the said suit along with the written statement filed a counter claim seeking a declaration to the effect that the purchase sanad obtained by the respondents is null and void and further for a declaration that they are deemed purchasers of the said suit property. 5. During the pendency of the said suit the suit filed by the respondents came to be dismissed for default but however the counter claim filed by the respondents proceeded for trial and disposed of. The learned trial Judge by judgment and decree dated 28/12/2004 dismissed the suit filed by the appellants on the ground that the appellants have failed to establish their claim of tenancy in respect of the suit property. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge which also came to be rejected by judgment and decree dated 19/10/2005. Being aggrieved by the judgments passed by the Courts below disposing the counter claim filed by the appellants the present second appeal came to be admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgments passed by the Courts below disposing the counter claim filed by the appellants the present second appeal came to be admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law. 6. Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that as the issue of tenancy arose in the suit, the Courts below were not justified to decide such issue without referring the same before the learned Mamlatdar. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the appellants had initiated proceedings before the learned Mamlatdar to declare themselves as tenants which came to be rejected on the ground that the dispute between two tenants as is the case between the appellants and the respondents the Mamlatdar did not have jurisdiction to decide such dispute. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Courts below have erroneously exercised jurisdiction in going into the merits of the suit as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide such aspect. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of the judgment passed by the Courts below the appellants have no remedy to establish their claim of tenancy before the Competent Authority. The learned Counsel as such submits that the substantial questions of law are to be answered in favour of the appellants. 7. The respondents though served failed to remain present. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. On perusal of the relief sought by the appellants the main relief in the counter claim filed by the appellants is for a declaration that they are deemed purchasers of the suit property. I am afraid such relief cannot be granted by the Civil Court in view of the specific bar under the Agricultural Tenancy Act. It is also to be noted that the appellants are claiming tenancy from the landlord who is the Communidade of Quelossim. The said landlord is not a party to the suit. Hence, the question of claiming any declaration without the Communidade being party to the proceedings would not arise. 9. It is also to be noted that the appellants are claiming tenancy from the landlord who is the Communidade of Quelossim. The said landlord is not a party to the suit. Hence, the question of claiming any declaration without the Communidade being party to the proceedings would not arise. 9. The contention of Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants to the effect that the Civil Court ought to have referred the issue of tenancy to the learned Mamlatdar, I find that taking note of the fact that the landlord was not a party to the suit or the counter claim filed by the appellants the question of referring such issue would not arise. It is well settled that a claim of tenancy is qua the landlord and as such unless and until the landlord is a party to the proceedings it was not open to the learned Civil Court to refer such issue of tenancy before the Mamlatdar. Be that as it may, merely because the learned Judge has dismissed the counter claim filed by the appellants would not by itself preclude the appellants to initiate independent proceedings before the Mamlatdar to get claim adjudicated qua the landlord. Only after obtaining such declaration the legality or otherwise of the purchase sanad in favour of the respondents would have to be considered. In case the appellants initiate any such proceedings the concerned Authorities would have to decide such aspect on its own merits in accordance with law. The findings arrived at in the impugned judgments shall not influence the learned Mamlatdar to decide such claim on its own merits. The judgment referred to by Shri Pangam, of the Deputy Collector dated 27/12/1996 was essentially dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction as the Deputy Collector found that the dispute was between two tenants. Taking note of the fact that the proceedings if at all filed by the appellants would be also qua the landlord and such order of the Deputy Collector passed in Case no.TNC/Rev/2/95 would not come in the way of the appellants initiating such proceedings. 10. In view of the above, I find no case is made out for interference in the judgment passed by the Courts below. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 11. The second appeal stands disposed of accordingly.