Ramisetty Naraiah vs Poluri Venkata Subbamma & Ors

agricultural land situated at Pernamatta village,

Santhalapadu, Patta No.2182- Survey No.158/2, Ongole

District with the following boundaries - East : Government

Donka, South: Land of Inabathana Ramaiah, West : Land of

Gajula Kotaiah, North: Land of Adapal Jogaiah and

Venkatarao. Since the time he had taken on lease the above

mentioned lands, he has been regular in payment of Maktha

2 which is a lump sum amount of Rs.1200/- towards rent per

year to the schedule lands.

In 1979 as the appellant came to know that the husband

of 2nd respondent herein i.e Mannam Sundarannaiah and one

Adapa Venkatarao were contending that they had purchased

the schedule lands from G. Seetharamamma who is the wife of

the original Landlord and from whose brother the appellant

had taken the schedule lands on lease after his death. As the

respondents were contending that they will evict, appellant

filed suit O.S No. 791/1979 on the file of District Munsif

against 1st to 3rd respondents herein seeking permanent

injunction against them and also filed an I.A. No. 3963 of

1979 seeking temporary injunction.

In the suit for the first time it came to the knowledge of

the appellant herein that the 3rd respondent herein, to

discharge the debts had agreed to sell the schedule lands to

the husbands of the Ist and 2nd respondents herein by way of

agreements of sale dated 10.9.1979. Possession continued to

3 remain with the appellant herein and he was cultivating the

petition schedule lands.

0n 13.11.1979 the temporary injunction which was

granted in favour of the appellant was allowed and the

temporary injunction was made absolute, against which an

Appeal C.M.A. No. 111/1979 was filed by the 1 to 3

respondent herein in the court of District Court Munsif,

Ongole.

On 01.07.1980 Section 15 was incorporated in the

Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (in short

the `Act').

On 11.12.1980 the appeal C.M.A. No.111/ 1979 which

was filed by the respondents herein challenging the injunction

order dated 13.11.1979 was also dismissed.

On 17.01.1981, the 3rd respondent herein contrary to

Section 15 of the Act, sold the Southern half of the schedule

4 lands to the Ist respondent herein and Northern half of the

schedule lands to the 2nd respondent herein by executing

registered sale deeds. But still the appellant was in possession

of the lands and he was cultivating the same.

On 17.11.1981 the appellant filed A.T.C. (Andhra

Tenancy Case) which was numbered in the year 1982 and the

number of the case was A.T.C. No.2 of 1982 on the file of the

Court of District Munsif, Ongole (Special Officer Constituted

under Andhra Tenancy Act) and in the A.T.C. he contended

that the sales are contrary to Section 15 of the Act and as

such they are void and sought declaration from the court (a)

that he is entitled to first purchase the schedule lands, (b) that

the sale deeds executed on 17.01.1981 are void (c) that

respondents should execute proper sale deeds in favour of the

appellant and convey the schedule lands to him.

In ATC 2/1992 the respondents herein filed their counter

wherein they contended that the appellant defaulted in

payment of rents and they also stated that the schedule

5 property was sold to the respondents 1 and 2 by way of

registered sale deeds dt. 17.01.1981.

On 21.09.1984, the respondents herein filed A.T.C. No.

44 of 1984 under Section 13(a) of Act and sought for eviction

of the appellant and delivery of possession of the schedule

lands contending that the appellant defaulted in payment of

rents from 1978 to 1984. In this petition it was also

contended that on 5.5.1979 the appellant had written a letter

and re-delivered possession of the schedule lands to the 3rd

respondent's father and subsequently after the death of the 3rd

respondent's late father, the 3rd respondent herein leased out

the schedule lands to one A Vankata Rao on 15.06.1979 for a

period of one year.

In the year 1984 the appellant herein filed statement in

A.T.C. No.44/1984 denying the contentions pleaded by the

respondents and he also contended that the surrender

document alleged to have been executed by the appellant

6 herein is a false and forged one and that it is a concocted

document and that as a counter blast to the suit O.S.

791/1979 as well as A.T.C. 2 of 1982, the respondents

herein filed the present A.T.C. 44/1984 and he also

contended that as per the Court's order he had deposited the

rents in the Court. In the counter he also contended that the

sale of schedule lands are bad in the eye of law as he was not

offered first option to purchase the same.

On 07.11.1988, the learned Additional District Munsif,

Ongole dismissed O.S.No.791/1979 holding that the Court

had no jurisdiction as the dispute in the suit relates to a

dispute between a tenant and a landlord and that it can be

decided only by the Special Officer under the provisions of

Act.

Both the A.T.Cs were clubbed together and common

evidence was recorded and on behalf of the appellant herein

two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the

7 respondents herein two witnesses were examined and exhibits

Al to A30 were marked and no exhibit and/or any document

was marked by the respondents herein.

On 15.05.1992 the Court of the Special Officer for

Tenancy Cases, Ongole (Principal District Munsif, Ongole)

dismissed A.T.C No.2/1982 filed by the appellant herein and

allowed A.T.C. No.441/1984 filed by the respondents herein

taking the view that as the alleged agreements of sales are

prior to the enactment of Section 15 of Act and as registered

sale deeds are executed subsequent to the enactment of

Section 15 of the Act the same are not hit by Section 15 of Act.

The Trial Court also held that the appellant also committed

default in payment of rents. The Court however held that

there is no proof that the appellant surrendered the lands by

way of a delivery receipt on 05.05.1979 and no such delivery

receipt was filed.

In the year 1992 the appellant herein aggrieved by the

orders passed in A.T.C. No. 2/1982 and A.T.C. No. 44/1984

8 filed A.T.A. No. 8 of 1992 and cross objections were filed by

the respondents 1 and 2 herein against the orders passed in

A.T.C. No. 44/1984 and the appellant herein filed A.T.A.

No.9/ 1992 and cross objections were filed by the respondents

1 and 2 herein against the orders passed in A.T.C. No.2/1982

On 19.04.1997, the Court of District Judge, Ongole on

appreciation of facts, evidence and law allowed both the

appeals i.e A.T.A. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1992 filed by the appellant

herein and dismissed both the cross objections field by the

respondents herein. In its order the appellate Court has

specifically held that there is only recital in the sale deeds

about the agreement of sale. The agreements are not filed. The

recital about the sale agreement is made in the sale deeds

only to avoid the benefit of Section 15 of the amended Act to

the tenant. Admittedly, Exhibits A2 and A3 sale deeds were

executed after the amendment Act came into force. Even if

there is an agreement of sale by the time of 01.07.1980 in

favour of the husbands of vendees, the landlord should have

issued notice as contemplated U/S. 15 (1) of the Act as the

9 sale had not been completed. Section 15(6) of the Tenancy Act

refers to only sale, but not agreement of sale. Though sale can

be made under a registered document, consent was not

obtained prior to the amended Act and also no suit for specific

performance was filed and that it is not known why the

purchases under the agreement of sale on 10.9.1979 kept

quite for about one year and four months in obtaining the sale

deeds in the name of their nominees. The circumstances

under which the agreements of the sale were executed and

obtained sale deeds in the name of the wives of the agreement

holders and filing of A.T.C. 44/1984 by one of the landlords

and vendees give rise to suspicion that only to evict the tenant

from the land, the landlord set up to plea that the land was

leased out to another person A. Venkata Rao and the land was

agreed to be sold to the husbands of vendees and executed

agreements of sale. The collusion can also be seen in filing of

A.T.C. 44 of 1984. All the vendors did not join in A.T.C. 44 of

1984. Only R.1 and vendees joined in A.T.C. 44 /1984 for

evicting the tenant. There is no need for R.1 to join as a party

in A.T.C. 44 / 1984 to evict the tenant as by then the title was

10 conveyed to the vendees and R1 had no interest in the land.

Only to protect his right to evict the tenant in case the sale

deeds are found to be void, he joined in A.T.C. 44/1984. As

the amended Act provided an option for the tenant to

purchase the land the landlord had to first give notice to the

tenant in case he wants to sell the lands. To avoid such

notice, sale deed were obtained in the names of the wives in

pursuance of the agreements of the sales. Even though there

was an agreement of sale prior to amended Act, the agreement

of sale is not enforceable as it contravenes the provisions of

section 15 of the amended tenancy Act and Section 17 of the

Act reads "The provision of this Act shall have effect

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in

any pre-existing law; custom, usage, agreement or decree or

order of Court." The appellate Court has also negatived the

contentions of the respondents that the appellant has

committed default in payment of rents. So holding, appellate

Court allowed both the A.T.A. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1992 and

dismissed the cross objections in both the appeals.

11 In 1997 after the A.T.A.s were allowed, the appellant

herein filed O.S. No.619 of 1997 in the Court of Principal

Junior Civil Judge Ongole, against respondents 1 to 12 in

A.T.C. 21 1982 and sought a direction to be given to the

respondents 1 to 12 therein to execute a registered sale deed

in favour of him for the schedule property.

In 1998, aggrieved by the orders passed in both A.T.A. 8

and 9 of 1992 only the respondents 1 to 3 filed C.R.P. Nos.

5692 and 5695 of 1998 under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, 1950 in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra

Pradesh.

On 20.10.2000, the Court of Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Ongole by its judgment allowed O.S. No.619 of 1997

directing the defendants therein to execute a sale deed in

favour of the plaintiff (appellant herein) for the schedule

lands.

12 On 22.09.2005, the respondents 1 and 2 filed C.M.P.

No.6683/2005 in C.R.P. No.5695 of 1998 and sought to

implead respondents 2 to 12 in A.T.C. No.2/1982 who are

legal heirs of original landlords as respondents 5 to 15 in

C.R.P. No.5695 /1998.

On 3.09.2005 the High Court of Judicature of Andhra

Pradesh by a common judgment allowed both the C.R.Ps. i.e.

5692 and 5695 of 1998 and dismissed C.M.P. No. 6683 of

2005 filed by the appellant.

According to the appellant the alleged agreement for sale

was in favour of the husbands of R1 and R2. There was

nothing indicated in the said agreements that there can be

execution in favour of any other person or nominee. The

stand taken was that the property was leased out to somebody

else and not to appellant. It is his case that Section 15 of the

Act makes the position absolutely clear that when there is an

intention to sell the land leased to a cultivating tenant, such

tenant shall be first given notice of the intention to sell such

13 land and requiring him to exercise his option to purchase the

land. Only in case the cultivating tenant does not exercise his

option, it can be offered to somebody else. The High Court

has erroneously come to the conclusion that since the alleged

agreement for sale was executed prior to introduction of the

provision, the provision has no applicability.

According to learned counsel there was no discussion

even of the ingredients of the provision and in any event of

sub section (6) of Section 15 and Section 17 of the Act. It is

pointed out that R-3 had filed an application to the effect that

he does not want to press the petition before the High Court.

On that basis, his name was deleted from the array of parties

and he was added as respondent No.4. The question of

default therefore becomes redundant as the District Court has

dismissed the eviction petition which was filed on the ground

of default. The effect of the prayer made by the respondent

No. 3, who was a petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, was

also not considered by the High Court.

14

4. It is the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that

the object of Section 15 is to protect the interest of the

cultivating tenant. Therefore, in case the landlord intends to

sell the land, he has to first give option to the cultivating

tenant. Even if there was an agreement earlier to the

introduction of the provision, that is really of no consequence

as otherwise the provisions of Section 17 would become

redundant. It is, therefore, submitted that though the

provision according to the High Court came into force with

effect from 1.7.1980 and the agreements were purportedly

entered into on 10.9.1979, the sale deed was executed on

17.1.1981. The High Court, it is submitted, has not also

considered the question whether the sale deeds could have

been executed in favour of the respondents 1 & 2 when

admittedly the purported agreement for sale was entered into

with their respective husbands.

5. In reply learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that High Court's judgment is in order because what is stated

in Section 11 of the Act. According to him, even if there is a

15 change in ownership of the land the cultivating tenant

continues the tenancy on the same terms as before. It is

pointed out that Section 15 shall came into operation only

when there is an intention to sell the land. That intention in

the present case was already expressed and agreement for

sale was executed prior to introduction of the provision in

question.

6. We find that the trial court has not considered the effect

of the sub-section (6) of Section 15 and Section 17. The

relevant provisions read as follows:

"Section 15. Cultivating tenants' right to-first purchase the land leased to him: (1) Any landlord intending to sell the land leased to a cultivating tenant shall first give notice to such cultivating tenant; of his intention to sell such land, and requiring him to exercise his option to purchase the land. The particulars to be specified in the notice and the time within which the option shall be exercised by cultivating tenant shall be such as may be prescribed.

(2) to (5) ..............................................

16 (6) Any sale of the land by the landlord in cultivation of this Section shall be voidable to the option of the cultivating tenant."

"17. Act to override contract and other laws:-

The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any pre-existing law custom, usage, agreement or decree or order of a Court."

7. Section 17 has overriding effect. As a bare reading of the

provision makes it clear, it inter-alia provides that

notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any pre

existing law, custom, usage, agreement or decree or order of

the court, the provisions of the Act shall have effect.

Similarly, sub-section (6) of Section 15 provides that any sale

of the land by the landlord in contravention of Section 15 shall

be voidable to the option of the cultivating tenant. The High

Court has come to an abrupt conclusion that since the

agreement to sell was purportedly executed prior to the

introduction of the provision, they have no relevance. There is

no discussion as to the effect of the provisions, and the

specific reference to agreements. Additionally, the High Court

17 has not dealt with the aspect as to whether it could have gone

into the question of default when respondent No. 3 who was

shown as the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition did not

want to pursue the petition.

8. In the aforesaid background we deem it proper to remit

the matter to the High Court to hear and dispose of the Civil

Revision Petitions afresh and deal with the aspects highlighted

above. We make it clear that we have not expressed any

opinion on the merits. Since the matter is pending since long,

we request the High Court to dispose of the petitions as early

as practicable preferably by the end of February, 2009.

9. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

.........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi,

18 August 22, 2008

19