IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.24089 OF 2005  

Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs.

Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors. .. Respondents   

With CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 110 OF 2006

IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.24089 OF 2005  

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. This  SLP  is  directed  against  the  judgment  

and order dated 20th September, 2005, passed by the

Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in  Second  Appeal  

No.648/2004, allowing  the same and setting aside  

the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2004, passed by  

the  2nd Additional  District  Judge  (Fast  Track  

Court-I), Khammam in  A.S. No.17/2002.  By its  

judgment, the First Appellate Court had reversed  

the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1999 passed by  

the  Senior  Civil  Judge,  Kothagudam,  being  O.S.  

No.54 of 1991, dismissing the suit.

2. Initially, the suit was filed for injunction  

simpliciter  before the learned District Munsif,  

Yallandu. Subsequently, the plaint was amended to  

include the relief for declaration of title and  

delivery  of  possession  of  the  plaint  schedule  

property.  During the pendency of the suit the  

first plaintiff died and his legal representatives  

were brought on record as the plaintiff Nos. 2 to  

9. Subsequently, the plaintiff No.9 also expired.  

2

3. The  case  made  out  in  the  plaint  by  the  

plaintiff was that he was the owner and possessor  

of the suit scheduled lands and the defendants had  

no right, title and interest therein, nor did they  

have any right to demand that  they be allowed to  

cultivate the land on a crop-sharing basis. The  

dispute which had arisen regarding the cultivation  

of lands in question resulted in the filing of the  

suit.

4. From the facts as disclosed, it appears that  

on 25.5.1961 the original plaintiff agreed to sell  

3.01 acres in Survey No.87  and 92 and 3.13 acres  

in  Survey  No.3.08  to  one  Bathula  Veeraiah  and  

Enika  Pitchaiah under an agreement for sale and  

made  over  physical  possession  of  the  lands  in  

question to the said two persons.  Subsequently,  

on 15th April, 1962, the original plaintiff also  

sold  another  portion  of  the  plaint  schedule  

property  to  the  said  two  persons  under  another  

3

agreement  for  sale  and  made  over  physical  

possession  of  the  said  lands  to  them.  

Consequently,  from  the  said  two  dates,  the  

original plaintiff was out of possession of the  

plaint schedule property.

5 On 5th February, 1968, Bathula Veeraiah and  

Enika  Pitchaiah  agreed to sell 0.37½  acres of  

land in Survey Nos.284 and 292, 3.01 acres out of  

Survey No.87 and 92 and 3.13 acres out of survey  

No.308, forming item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the suit  

schedule  property  to  M/s  Yedlapalli  Ramaiah  and  

Royalla Laxmaiah under an agreement for sale and  

made over physical possession of the suit lands to  

the  intending  purchasers  who  took  possession  of  

the  suit  properties.  On  15.8.1969  Yedlapalli  

Ramaiah and Royalla Laxmaiah agreed to sell item  

No.1 of the plaint schedule property to the 2nd  

defendant,  the  respondent  No.8  herein,  under  an  

agreement  for  sale  and  delivered  physical  

4

possession of the suit lands to him. On the same  

day,  the  said  Yedlapalli  Ramaiah  and  Royalla  

Laxmaiah also agreed to sell 2.27 acres in Survey  

No.92 and 0.14 acres in Survey No.87, in favour of  

the 1st  defendant the appellant No.1 herein, under  

an  agreement  for  sale  and  delivered  physical  

possession of the lands to him. Since then the 1st  

appellant is in possession of the 1st item of the  

plaint schedule property. By yet another agreement  

for sale Yedlapalli Ramaiah and Royalla Laxmaiah  

agreed to sell 1.22 acres in Survey No.308 to the  

wife  of  the  defendant  No.3,  the  appellant  No.2  

herein,  under  an  agreement  for  sale.   The  

defendant Nos. 4 and 5, namely, the appellant No.5  

and  respondent  No.9,  are  in  possession  of  the  

remaining 1.22 acres in Survey No. 308.

6. As  indicated  hereinabove,  the  suit  was  

initially  dismissed,  but  was  decreed  by  the  1st  

appellate  Court  on  the  finding  that  all  the  

5

various transactions were hit by Sections 47 and  

50B  of  the  Hyderabad  Tenancy  and  Agricultural  

Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the  

1950  Act”).   It  was  held  that  the  plaintiffs  

continued  to  be  in  possession  of  the  lands  in  

question  through  the  defendants  who  had  not  

acquired  any  right  to  the  lands  and  their  

possession  therein  was  merely  permissive  

possession.

7. The  High  Court  allowed  the  Second  Appeal  

upon  holding  that  the  possession  of  the  

beneficiaries  of  the  various  transactions  

involving the land was adverse to the interest of  

the  plaintiffs  and  the  said  transfers  were  not  

effected by the provisions of Sections 47 and 50B  

of the 1950 Act.

8. The High Court took note of the fact that  

Section 47 of the Act had been repealed from the  

statute book even before 1969 and even otherwise  

6

the provisions of the Act are applicable between  

landlord  and  tenant   and  have  no  application  

insofar  as  third  parties  are  concerned.  

Accordingly,  the  High  Court  held  that  the  

transactions  were hit by Section  47 of the 1950  

Act  and  consequently  Section  50B  was  also  not  

required to be invoked. The High Court observed  

that  the  original  plaintiff  had  lost  his  

possession  in  the  land  on  25.5.1961  when  he  

executed  the  agreement  for  sale  and  made  over  

possession  of  the  lands  in  question  to  the  

intending  purchaser.  Thereafter,  possession  

changed hands several times. It was observed that  

had  the  defendants  claimed  directly  through  the  

original  plaintiff  No.1  under  the  agreement  of  

sale  dated 25.5.1961, it could always be said  

that they were in permitted possession  and not in  

adverse  possession  which  was,  however,  not  the  

case as far as the suit properties were concerned,  

since possession had changed lands at least twice  

7

and  at  least  from  15.8.1969  till  the  date  of  

filing of the suit it could be contended that the  

defendants  were  in  adverse  possession  of  the  

properties  as  far  as  the  plaintiffs  were  

concerned.

9. The  substantial  question  of  law  framed  in  

the Second Appeal as to whether the transactions  

in question were hit by Sections 47 and 50B of the  

1950 Act and whether the plaintiffs were entitled  

to  a  decree  as  prayed  for,  were,  therefore,  

answered by the High Court in the Second Appeal in  

the negative.

10. On behalf of the petitioners, it was sought to  

be pointed out that the High Court had erred in  

reversing  the  judgment  and  decree  of  the  first  

Appellate Court on the erroneous premise that the  

possession  of  the  defendants  in  the  suit  were  

adverse to the interests of the plaintiffs, since  

all the transferees derived their claims to the  

8

lands through the petitioner. It was urged that it  

was  on  account  of  the  first  Agreement  to  Sell  

dated 25.5.1961 that the subsequent occupants of  

the land acquired possession thereof. Their claim,  

therefore,  had  to  be  traced  from  the  said  

Agreement for Sale dated 25.5.1961 and not on the  

basis of the Agreements for Sale executed in their  

favour subsequently. It was urged that the High  

Court had committed an error of law in holding  

that the possession of the defendants was adverse  

to  that  of  the  plaintiffs  and  permissible  in  

nature.

11. Even on the question of the applicability of  

Sections  47  and  50B  of  the  1950  Act  to  the  

transactions relating to the suit lands after the  

initial agreement for sale, it was contended  on  

behalf  of  the  petitioners  that  since  the  

defendants derived the right, if any, to possess  

the suit lands from the original plaintiff, the  

9

question of a third party interest did not arise,  

and,  accordingly,  the  High  Court  was  wrong  in  

holding  that  the  transactions  were  not  hit  by  

Section 47 of the 1950 Act.

12. It was, therefore, urged that the judgment and  

decree  of  the  High  Court  was  liable  to  be  set  

aside.

13.  Learned counsel for the respondents, on the  

other hand, strongly supported the decision of the  

High Court and submitted that the same did not  

warrant any interference.  It was submitted that  

there  was  no  dispute  that  the  suit  property  

changed  hands  at  least  twice  after  the  initial  

Agreement  for  Sale  dated  25.5.1961,  which  in  

itself was an indication that such possession was  

hostile  and  adverse  to  the  interest  of  the  

plaintiffs.  The High Court, could not, therefore,  

be faulted in arriving at the finding that the  

10

possession of the defendants was adverse to that  

of the plaintiff and not permissible as submitted  

on behalf of the plaintiffs.

14. It was also submitted that the High Court had  

correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 47  

of the 1950 Act in their application to the facts  

of  the  instant  case  and  did  not  call  for  any  

interference.

15. We have carefully considered the submissions  

made on behalf of the parties and are unable to  

accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the  

petitioners.  That  there  were  a  series  of  

transactions  involving  the  suit  lands  after  the  

original plaintiff executed the Agreement for Sale  

on 25.5.1961 and lost possession thereof, is not  

disputed.  It  is  also  not  disputed  that  the  

plaintiffs had not at any point of time objected  

to  the  Agreements  for  Sale  entered  into  after  

25.5.1961 despite the same being adverse to their  

11

interest.  The High Court, in our view, correctly  

held  that  the  possession  of  the  defendants  was  

adverse to the interests of the plaintiff.

16. As  to  the  question  of  the  applicability  of  

Section  47  of  the  1950  Act  to  the  several  

transactions which had taken place with regard to  

the plaint schedule property, it is difficult to  

accept  the  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  

petitioner  that  since  possession  of  the  lands  

could be traced back to the original  agreement  

for sale dated 25.5.1961, it must be held that all  

the  subsequent  occupants,  claimed  possessory  

rights under the original Agreement for Sale dated  

25.5.1961.

17. Such  being  the  case  we  see  no  reason  to  

interfere with the judgment and decree of the High  

Court.  The Special Leave Petition is, therefore,  

dismissed,  but  without  any  orders  as  to  costs.  

Consequently,  the notice issued on the Contempt  

12

Petition is discharged  and the Contempt Petition  

is also dismissed.

……………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

……………………………………………..J. (CYRIAC JOESPH)

New Delhi  Dated: December 15, 2009

13