LexMUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA versus DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 545 [2021] 10 S.C.R. 545 545 MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No(s). 6482-6483 of 2021) OCTOBER 27, 2021 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.] Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act – ss.14, 15 and 16 – The appellant-tenant claimed the cultivating tenant’s right to first purchase the land leased to him – Dispute arose between the appellant and first respondent-landlord – The appellant had approached the Tribunal claiming various reliefs u/s. 16 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act i.e. for declaratory relief that the price of the schedule land i.e., `1,25,000/per acre is reasonable and stood accepted by the first respondent by receiving the first instalment of `49,125/- by demand draft; that he was entitled to pay the balance sale price of `4,42,125/- to first respondent in nine instalments; for a declaration that two registered sale deed documents executed by first respondent in favour of the second and third respondents are void – The Tribunal, upheld the appellant’s claim and held that the appellant had never surrendered the tenancy; that the compromise which was arrived at between the landlords and that his possession as a cultivating tenant remained undisturbed – Consequently, he was entitled to the purchase rights as the law allowed – The District Court held that the relief granted by the Tribunal was untenable as the appellant had surrendered the tenancy – The High Court concurred with the Tribunal – On appeal, held: The twin conditions that make a valid surrender of tenancy are firstly, three months’ notice in writing to the landlord, and the Special Officer about the intention to surrender the tenancy, and secondly, satisfaction recorded by the Special Officer in an order, after due inquiry about the voluntary nature of the surrender of tenancy – Neither first respondent nor the other contesting respondents (who purchased the lands from her) pleaded or proved that notice in writing was issued to them by the appellant, followed by inquiry conducted by the Special Officer, culminating in an order accepting such alleged surrender – Further, the order passed in the compromise petition, clearly recorded, in more than one place, that the lease A B C D E F G H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R. between the appellant on the one hand, and first respondent, on the other, was subsisting and continuing – Therefore, clearly, the findings of the District Judge and the High Court, regarding surrender (either in part or fully) of the tenancy, are wholly untenable – As far as agreement to purchase land is concerned, the particulars of the demand drafts, and the registered sale deeds, were exhibited during the proceedings – These were incontrovertible facts – Having regard to these facts, appellant’s further case was that a sum of `49,125/- was paid as first of the nine instalments, the balance being `4,42,000/-. Ex. P-12 was the covering letter enclosing a demand draft dated 26-09-2003 – That document categorically referred to the sale transaction, clearly spelling out that the amount was towards an instalment payable as consideration for purchase of property – The District Judge and the High Court could not have upset the order of the tribunal as regards the appellant’s exercise of right to purchase the property, u/s. 15 – Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court, as well as the judgment of the District Court, are set aside. Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors vs Govind Joti Chavare [1975] 3 SCR 839 – relied on. Adapala Subbaiah vs. Shaik Hasan Saheb 2007 (4) ALT 54; Mygapula Venkateswara Rao vs. Ponangi Venkataraju 1990 (1) APLJ (HC) 466; Badugu Venkata Durga Rao and Ors. vs. Surneni Lakshmi 2001 (1) ALT115; Madhao Tatya Sonar v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur & Ors 1970 Mh. L.J. 991 – referred to. Case Law Reference [1975] 3 SCR 839 relied on Para 35 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.6482- 6483 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.06.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) in Civil Revision Petition Nos.816 and 3591 of 2011. Sridhar Potaraju, (Amicus Curiae) G. Seshagiri Rao, Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Aayush, Advs. for the Appellant. A B C D E F G H 547 G.V.R. Choudary, Anumolu Chandershekhar, Ms. U. Toshitha, K. Shivraj Choudhuri, Sameer Kumar, Sanjeev Malhotra, Shah Rukh Ahmad, Mandeep Baisala, Advs. for the Respondents. The Order of the Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.