REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5193-5195        OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 24733-24735 of 2005)

Ramisetty Naraiah …..Appellant

Versus

Poluri Venkata Subbamma & Ors. ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT

1. Leave granted.  

2. Challenge  in  this  appeal  is  to  the  order  passed  by  a

learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court

allowing the Civil Revision Petitions  Nos. 5692 and 5695 of

1998 filed by the respondent while dismissing the CMP No.

6683 of 2005 filed by the appellant.

3. Background facts as projected by the appellant  are  as

follows:

In April, 1975 the appellant herein had taken the petition

schedule lands which are to an extent of Acres 5-36 cents of

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