LexNELAPATLA RAMAIAH & ORS . versus KAMATAM BIKSHAMAIAH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 473 .. NELAPATLA RAMAIAH & ORS . A v. KAMATAM BIKSHAMAIAH & ORS. (SLP (Civil) Nos. 24089 of 2005) DECEMBER 15, 2009 B [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Adverse Possession: Possession of agricultural lands transferred by original c holder under agreements for sale in 1961 - Lands further t;ansferred by purchasers and again by second purchasers - Original /and-holder filing suit for injunction, declaration and for possession in 1991 - HELD: In view of the plaintiff losing possession and properties changing hands in series of D transactions and plaintiff nqt objecting to agreements for sale, 'High Court correctly held possession of defendants as adverse to interests of plaintiff - As regards applicability of s. 47 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, it cannot be said that subsequent occupants claimed E possessory rights under original agreement for sale dated 22.5.1961 - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950- s. 47. ·~ The o·riginal land holder by agreements for sale ~ dated 25.5.1961 and 15.4.1962, agreed to sell certain F agricultural lands. The physical possession was handed over to the purchasers. On 5.2.1968 the purchasers further agreed to sell the properties and parted with possession of the lands. The second purchasers under agreements for sale executed in the year 1969, further G transferred the possession of some of the lands to defendants 1-3. There arose some dispute regarding cultivation of the said land. The original holder of the lands filed a suit initially for injunction and subsequently 473 H 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A amended the plaint claiming relief of declaration of title and delivery of possession of the suit lands. On his death, plaintiffs 2 to 9 were substituted. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but decreed by the first appellate court holding that all the transactions were hit by ss, 47 and B 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; and that the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit lands through the defendants who did not acquire any right thereon and their possession was merely permissive in nature. However, the High c Court, in second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court holding that possession of beneficiaries of various transactions was adverse to the interests of the plaintiffs and the transfers were not affected by ss. 47 and 50-B of the Act. It was D further held that s.47 stood repealed even before 1969; and that even otherwise, the provisions of the Act which were applicable between landlord and tenant, had no application in so far as third parties were concerned. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the petition for special leave E to appeal. A contempt petition was also filed. Dismissing the petition for special leave to appeal as also the contempt petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. That there were a series of transactions F 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 G the same being adverse to their interests. The High Court correctly held that the possession of the defendants was adverse to the interests of the plaintiff. [Para 15) [479-H; 480-A-B] 1.2. As to the question of applicability of s.47 of the H Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 to NELAPATLA RAMAIAH & ORS. v. KAMATAM 475 BIKSHAMAIAH the several transactions which had taken place with A regard to the plaint schedule properties, it cannot be said that possession of the lands could be traced back to the original agreement for sale dated 25.5.1961 and all the subsequent occupants claimed possessory rights under the original agreement for sale dated 25.5.1961. [Para 16) B [480-C-D] 1.3. In the circumstances, there is no reason to i interfere with the judgment and decree of the High Court. Consequently, the notice issued on the contempt petition is discharged. [Para 17] [480-D-E] C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 24089 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 20.9.2005 of the High 0 Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in S.A. No. i 648 of 2004. WITH Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 110 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.