http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHD ASHRAFUDDIN

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/03/1982

BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J) BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J) KOSHAL, A.D. ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)

CITATION:  1982 AIR  913            1982 SCR  (3) 482  1982 SCC  (2)   1        1982 SCALE  (1)139  CITATOR INFO :  F          1983 SC1073  (20,21)

ACT:      Andhra Pradesh  Land Reforms  (Ceiling on  Agricultural Holdings)  Act   1973-Section  3(i),  10  and  12-Scope  of- "Holding" and ’held’-Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:      Out of  the total  holding of  his land  the respondent transferred land  to two persons under two unregistered sale deeds and  gifted away  some land  to his son. In the return submitted by  him the  respondent did  not  include  in  his holding the  area transferred  under the  unregistered  sale deeds.  The   Land  Reforms   Tribunal,  ignoring   the  two transfers, computed  his holding  at 1.7692 standard holding and called  upon him  to surrender land equivalent to 0.7692 standard holding.      On appeal  the Land  Reforms Appellate  Tribunal upheld the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal.      In  revision   the  High   Court  held  that  the  land transferred under  the two  sale deeds could not be included in the  holding  of  the  respondent  for  ascertaining  the ceiling area.  In coming  to this  conclusion the High Court gave the  benefit of  section 53A  of Property  Act  to  the person in  possession of  the plots pursuant to the contract for sale  and treated  the land as a part of his holding. It was  contended   on  behalf   of  the  respondent  that  the definition  of   ’holding’   contemplates   ownership   with possession and  if so  the transferee  in possession will be taken to  be the  holder of the land transferred and not the respondent  who  was  the  transferor  or  who  was  not  in possession.      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD  :   The  respondent   satisfies  the   conditions contemplated by the definition of the term ’holding’ and the land transferred  by him  under a  defective title deed will form part  of his  holding. The  High Court  was in error in holding that the land in possession of the transferee cannot be taken to be a part of the holding of the respondent. [486 H; 487 A]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

    The expression  ’held’ connotes  both ownership as well as possession.  In the  context of  the definition it is not possible to  interpret term  ’held’ only  in  the  sense  of possession. The  explanation to  the definition of ’holding’ clearly contemplates  that the  same land can be the holding of two different persons holding 483 the land  in two different capacities. The respondent in the instant case  is holding  the land  as owner although he was not in possession. [486 C-E]      It  is  well  settled  that  a  person  in  possession, pursuant to  a contract  for sale, does not get title to the land unless  there is  a valid  document  of  title  in  his favour.  In  the  instant  case  the  transferee  came  into possession in  pursuance of  an agreement  for sale  but  no valid deed  of title  was executed in his favour. Therefore, the ownership  remained with the transferor. But even in the absence of  a valid deed of title the possession pursuant to an agreement  of transfer  cannot be  said to be illegal and the transferee  is entitled  to remain in possession. If per chance he  is dispossessed  by the transferor he can recover possession. The  transferor cannot file any suit for getting back possession  but all the same he will continue to be the owner of the land agreed to be transferred. [486 F-H]      There may  conceivably be  cases where the same land is included in  holding of  two persons in different capacities and serious prejudice might be caused to one or both of them if  they  were  asked  to  surrender  the  excess  area.  To safeguard the  interest of  the owners  in such  a case  the legislature has made a provision in section 12(4) and (5) of the Act.  Even so  there might be cases where some prejudice might be caused to some tenure holders. [489 C-E; G]      But if  the definition of the term ’holding’ is couched in clear and unambiguous language the Court has to accept it as it  stands. So  construed the  same land can be a part of the holding  of various  persons  holding  it  in  different capacities. When  the terms  of the definition are clear and unambiguous there  is no  question of  taking extraneous aid for construing it. [489 H. 490 A]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1346 of 1976.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  judgment and  order dated the  17th September,  1976 of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 743 of 1976.      L.N.  Sinha,   Attorney  General,   P.P.  Rao   and   B Parathasarthy, for the Appellant      P. Govindan  Nair, S.K.  Mehta, P.N. Puri and M.K. Dua, for the Respondent.      A.V. Rangam for the applicant/interveners.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      MISRA  J.  The  present  appeal  by  special  leave  is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh  dated the 17th of September, 1976 allowing a civil revision  arising out  of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms 484 (Ceiling on  Agricultural Holdings)  Act, 1973,  hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’.      The holding  of the respondent consisted of survey Nos. 36, 37,  41, 42  and 92,  all dry,  admeasuring acres  88.46 cents in  village Ghotkuri  in district Adilabad. It appears

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

that he  had transferred 17 acres from survey Nos. 36 and 11 acres and  48 cents  from survey  No. 41  to another  person under unregistered  sale deeds  pursuant to an agreement for sale and  had gifted  away survey  Nos. 37, 42 and 92 to his own son Naimuddin by a document written on a plain paper.      Pursuant  to   a  notice  section  8  of  the  Act  the respondent filed a declaration in respect of his holding. In his declaration,  however, he did not include in his holding the area  transferred by  him under  two  unregistered  sale deeds and the aforesaid gift deed.      The  Land   Reforms  Tribunal  ignoring  the  aforesaid transfers computed  his holding  at 1.7692 standard holding. Under the  Act he  was  entitled  to  possess  one  standard holding only.  He was,  therefore, asked  to surrender  land equivalent to 0.7692 standard holding.      The respondent  feeling aggrieved took up the matter in appeal to  the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. He, however, confined his  appeal to  the land  covered by  the two  sale deeds in  respect of  survey Nos. 36 and 41 and submitted to the finding  of the Land Reforms Tribunal regarding the gift of survey  Nos.  37,  42  and  92.  The  Appellate  Tribunal confirmed the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal and ignored the sale  deeds executed  by the  respondent in  respect  of survey Nos.  36 and  41. The respondent challenged the order of the  Appellate Tribunal  by preferring  a revision to the High Court.  The High Court in its turn allowed the revision holding that  the land  transferred under the two sale deeds could not  be included  in the holding of the respondent for ascertaining the  ceiling area. The High Court has given the benefit of  section 53A  of the  Transfer of Property Act to the person  in possession  of  the  plots  pursuant  to  the contract for  sale and  treated the  land as  a part  of his holding. The  State of  Andhra Pradesh has come up in appeal to this Court. 485      The Attorney General appearing for the State has raised only  one   contention.  According  to  him,  on  a  correct interpretation of  the definition  of ’holding’  as given in clause (i)  of section 3 of the Act, the land transferred by the respondent  will still  continue to  be a  part  of  his holding. In  order to  appreciate the  contention we have to read the  definition of ’holding’ along with the explanation attached to it:      "3   (i)  ’holding’ means  the entire  land held  by  a person-      (i)  as an owner ;      (ii) as a limited owner ;     (iii) as an usufructuary mortgage ;      (iv) as a tenant ;      (v)  who is  in possession  by virtue  of a mortgage by           conditional sale  or through part performance of a           contract for  the sale of land or otherwise, or in           one or more of such capacities ;           and  the   expression  ’to  hold  land’  shall  be           construed accordingly.           Explanation :-Where  the same  land is held by one      person in  one capacity  and by  another person  in any      other capacity,  such land  shall be  included  in  the      holding of both such persons." The term  ’holding’ takes  in its  fold land held by various persons in  various capacities  viz.,  as  an  owner,  as  a limited owner,  as an  usufructuary mortgage, as a tenant or as a  person in  possession  by  virtue  of  a  mortgage  by conditional sale  or through  part performance of a contract for the sale of land or otherwise, or in one or more of such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

capacities.  The  Explanation  appended  to  the  definition clearly contemplates  that if  the same  land is held by one person in  one capacity  and by  another person  in  another capacity such  land shall be included in the holding of both such persons.  Obviously, therefore,  the same  land can  be taken to  be a  part of the holding of more persons than one provided they hold it in different capacities. 486      Shri P.  Govindan Nair  appearing for the respondent on the other  hand has  contended that the expression ’held’ in the definition  of  ’holding’  contemplates  ownership  with possession and  that if  this be so the transferee who is in possession will  be taken  to be  the  holder  of  the  land transferred, and  not the  respondent who was the transferor and who  was not  in possession.  He has also contended that the interpretation  sought to be put by the Attorney General on the definition would create an anomalous situation.      The word  ’held’ is  not defined  in the  Act. We have, therefore, to  go by  the dictionary  meaning of  the  term. According to  Oxford Dictionary ’held’ means : to possession to be  the owner or holder or tenant of ; keep possession of ; occupy.  Thus, ’held’  connotes both  ownership as well as possession. And  in the  context of the definition it is not possible to  interpret the  term ’held’ only in the sense of possession. For  example, if  a land is held by an owner and also by  a tenant or by a person in possession pursuant to a contract for  sale, the  holding will  be taken  to  be  the holding of  all such  persons. It  obviously means  that  an owner who  is not in actual possession will also be taken to be a  holder of  the land.  If there  was any  doubt in this behalf, the  same has  been  dispelled  by  the  explanation attached to  the  definition  of  the  term  ’holding’.  The explanation clearly  contemplates that  the same land can be the holding of two different persons holding the land in two different  capacities.   The  respondent   in  view  of  the definition certainly  is holding as an owner, although he is not in possession.      It is  by now  well settled that a person in possession pursuant to  a contract  for sale  does not get title to the land unless  there is  a valid  document  of  title  in  his favour. In  the instant case it has already been pointed out that the  transferee came into possession in pursuance of an agreement for  sale but  no valid deed of title was executed in his  favour. Therefore,  the ownership  remained with the respondent-transferor. But  even in  the absence  of a valid deed of  title the  possession pursuant  to an  agreement of transfer cannot  be said to be illegal and the transferee is entitled to  remain in  possession.  If  per  chance  he  is dispossessed by  the transferor,  he can recover possession. The  transferor  cannot  file  any  suit  for  getting  back possession but all the same he will continue to be the owner of the land agreed to be transferred. The respondent, in our considered opinion, satisfies the conditions contemplated by the  definition   of  the   term  ’holding’   and  the  land transferred by him under a defective 487 title deed  will form  part of  his holding. The High Court, therefore, erred  in holding  that the land in possession of the transferee  cannot be  taken to be a part of the holding of the transferor-respondent.      This takes us to the other contention raised by Shri P. Govindan Nair  that the  interpretation sought  to be put by the Attorney  General on  the  definition  would  create  an anomalous position  in as much as the same land according to the  definition   may  form  part  of  the  holding  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

transferor as  well as  of the transferee or of the owner as well as of the tenant.      At the  first flush  it may appear to be paradoxical to say that  the same  land could  form part  of the holding of various persons  enumerated in  the definition  of ’holding’ but on  a closer  scrutiny of the relevant provisions of the Act the proposition presents no difficulty.      A reference  may be  made to  sections 10 and 12 of the Act. In  so far as they are material for the purpose of this case they read:           "10 (1)  If the  extent of the holding of a person      is in  excess of  the ceiling area, the person shall be      liable to surrender the land held in excess.           (2) The  Tribunal shall serve on every person, who      is liable  to surrender  the land held in excess of the      ceiling area under sub-section (1), a notice specifying      therein the  extent of  land which  such person  has to      surrender and  requiring him to file a statement within      such period not being less than fifteen days, as it may      fix, indicating  therein full  particulars of the lands      which such person proposes to surrender.           (3) ..................(4)......................           (5)  (a) Nothwithstanding anything in this section      it shall  be open  to the  Tribunal to refuse to accept      the surrender of any land- 488           (i)  which   has    been   converted   into   non-                agricultural  land   and  has  been  rendered                incapable  of  being  used  for  purposes  of                agriculture;           (ii) the surrender  of which  is not acceptable on                account of  a dispute  as to the title to the                land or  an encumbrance  on the  land  or  on                account of  the land  being in the possession                of any  person mentioned in item (ii) or item                (v) of  clause (i) of section 3 or on account                of  the   land  proposed  to  be  surrendered                becoming  in  accessible  by  reason  of  its                severance from  the  remaining  part  of  the                holding; and           the Tribunal  shall, in  every such  case, serve a           notice on  the person  concerned requiring  him to           surrender any  other land  in  lieu  thereof;  and           thereupon the  provisions of  sub-sections (3) and           (4)  shall,   mutatis-mutandis   apply   to   such           surrender:           Provided  that   where   land   proposed   to   be           surrendered under  this section is burdened with a           mortgage, the Tribunal may, on an application made           by  the   mortgagor  with   the  consent   of  the           mortgagee, by  order, transfer  such mortgage from           the land  so proposed  to be  surrendered  to  the           residuary holding  of the mortgagor or to any part           thereof.           (b)  Where the  land so  surrendered under  clause                (a) is  also not  acceptable to the Tribunal,                the   Tribunal   shall,   after   giving   an                opportunity to  the person concerned of being                heard, select any other land in lieu thereof,                and thereupon,  the said land shall be deemed                to have been surrendered by such person."           "12(1) Where  any land is surrendered or is deemed      to  have   been  surrendered  under  this  Act  by  any      usufructuary mortgagee  or tenant,  the  possession  of      such land  shall  subject  to  such  rules  as  may  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    prescribed revert to the owner 489                (2) ............... (3)...................                (4) Where  any  land  is  surrendered  or  is           deemed to  have been surrendered under this Act by           any limited  owner or  by any person in possession           by virtue  of a  mortgage by  conditional sale  or           through a part performance of contract for sale or           otherwise, the  possession  of  such  land  shall,           subject to such rules as may be prescribed, revert           to the owner." It may  be argued  on the strength of section 10 that if the same land  is included  in the  holding of  two  persons  in different capacities  both of them may be asked to surrender the excess  area and in that case serious prejudice might be caused to  one or  to both  of them.  For example,  A is the owner of  certain plots and he delivers possession of a part of his  land  to  B  pursuant  to  an  agreement  for  sale. According  to  the  definition  of  ’holding’  the  land  in possession of B will be taken to be a part of the holding of A and  B both.  If the land forming part of the holding of A and B  is in excess of the ceiling area, both may be obliged to surrender  the excess area. The legislature, however, has made a  provision to  safeguard the interest of the owner in such a  case Section  12 (4)  provides; "Where  any land  is surrendered or is deemed to have been surrendered under this Act by  any limited  owner or by any person in possession by virtue of  a mortgage  by conditional sale or through a part performance  of   contract  for   sale  or   otherwise,  the possession of  such land shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed,  revert to  the owner.  Sub-section (5)  also safeguards the  interest of the mortgagee in possession or a person in possession in pursuance of a contract for sale and provides: "the  owner to  whom the  possession of  the  land reverts under  sub-section (4)  shall be liable to discharge the claim  enforceable against the land by the limited owner or person  in possession; and the land surrendered shall, if held as a security, continue to be the security."      Even so,  there may  be cases  in which  some prejudice might be  caused to  some tenure  holders but that cannot be helped. If  the definition  of the term ’holding’ is couched in clear and unambiguous language the court has to accept it as it  stands, and  if it  is so construed, there is not the slightest doubt  that the  same land  can be  a part  of the holding  of   various  persons   holding  it   in  different capacities. When  the terms  of the definition are clear and unambi- 490 guous there  is no  question of  taking extraneous  aid  for construing it.      Lastly, Shri P. Govindan Nair referred to Form No. I in the rules  framed under the Act. He relies on item 8 of that form in support of his contention. It reads:           "8. Have  all details of all lands owned by others      but held  by the declarant and where the declaration is      by a  family unit, by all members of the family unit as      limited owner,  usufructuary mortgagee,  tenant, or  in      possession by  virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale      or through  part performance of a contract for the sale      of land  or  otherwise  on  the  specified  date,  been      furnished in Enclosure II ?" We are  afraid, item  No. 8  of Form I of the rules does not help the  respondent at  all. Rather  it goes counter to his content. It  envisages that the same land can be part of the holding of various persons in different capacities.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

    For the  foregoing discussion  the appeal must succeed. We, accordingly  allow the  same and  set aside the order of the  High  Court  and  restore  that  of  the  Land  Reforms Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to casts. P.B.R.                                       Appeal allowed. 491