RAMISETTY NARAIAH versus POLURI VENKATA SUBBAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 22-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 12 S.C.R. 484 
A 
RAMISETTY NARAIAH 
r--
v. 
POLURI VENKATA SUBBAMMA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5193-5195 of 2008) 
B 
AUGUST 22, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
" 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
( 
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 -
c ss. 15(6) and 17 -Applicability of - Property leased out to 
tenant -
Subsequently, change in ownership of land -
Agreement of sale executed prior to incorporation of s. 15, 
whereby cultivating tenant has first right to purchase the land 
leased to him - Registered sale deeds executed subsequent 
D to the enactment of s. 15 - Tenants' seeking declaration of 
their rights -
In appeal, High Court .I-Jo/ding that since 
agreement to sell was purportedly executed prior to 
incorpor~tion of provision, s. 15 not applicable - Effect of 
provisions and specific reference to agreements not 
~ 
E considered - Also High Court did not deal as to whether it 
could have gone into question of default when vendor did 
... 
not want to pursue the petition - Hence, matter remitted to 
, 
High Court to dispose of the petitions afresh. 
The original landlord leased out the schedule lands 
F to the appellant on rent. Appellant came to know that 
the husband of respondent no. 1 and 2 had purchased 
I 
the schedule lands from the wife of the original Landlord 
..... 
and they would evict him. He filed suit for permanent 
injunction as also application for temporary injunction · 
G against respondents no. 1 to 3. Thereafter, appellant came 
to know that respondent no. 3 had agreed to sell the 
schedule lands to the husbands of the respondents no. 
1 and 2 by agreements of sale dated 10.9.1979, to 
~-
discharge his debts. Appellant continued in possession 
H 
484 
RAMISETTY NARAIAH v. POLURI VENKATA 
485 
->+ 
SUBBAMMA & ORS. 
of the lands and was cultivating the same. Appellant A 
was granted temporary injunction. Respondent no 1 to 
;, 
3 filed appeal which was dismissed. Meanwhile, on 
01.07.1980, s. 15 was incorporated in the Andhra Pradesh 
(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. On 17.01.1981, the 
t 
respondent no. 3 sold the schedule lands to respondent B 
• 
no. 1 and 2 by registered sale deeds. But still the 
appellant was in possession of the lands and he was 
cultivating the same. Thereafter, appellant filed Andhra 
Tenancy Case on the ground that the sale deeds 
executed on 17.01.1981 are void, be.ing contrary to s. 15 c 
of the Act and sought declaration that he is entitled to 
first purchase the schedule lands. Respondents then 
filed A. T.C. seeking eviction· of appellant and delivery of 
possession of the schedule lands as the appellant 
defaulted in payment of rents and the appellant had re-
D 
delivered the possession of the schedule lands to the 
father of respondent no. 3. On 07 .11.1988, the suit for 
.. 
permanent injunction was dismissed. Thereafter, A.T.C 
filed by the appellant was dismissed and that of the 
respondent was allowed. The· court held that as the E 
alleged agreements of sales are prior to the enactment 
of s. 15 of Act and as registered sale deeds are executed 
subsequent to the enactment of s. 15 of the Act, the 
same are not hit by s. 15 of Act; that the appellant 
committed default in payment of rents; and that there 
~ 
was no proof that the appellant surrendered the lands F 
by way of a delivery receipt. In 1992, the appellant filed 
appeals which were allowed. In 1997, the appellant 
sought direction against respondents 1 to 12 to execute 
a registered sale deed for the schedule property in his 
favour which was allowed later. Meanwhile, the G· 
>-> 
respondents 1 to 3 filed C.R.P no. 5692 and .5695 of 
1998, Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed C.M.P. in C.R:P. High 
Court allowed the C.R.Ps., and dismissed the C.M.P. 
Hence the present appeal. 
H 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant-tenant contended that the object of s.- 15 
of the Act 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; 
that the High Court erred in holding that since the alleged 
B agreement for sale was executed prior to introduction 
of the provision, s. 15 was not applicable; that even if 
there was an agreement earlier to the introduction of 
the provision, it is of no consequence as otherwise the 
provisions of s. 17 would become redundant; that the 
c High Court did not consider the question whether the 
sale deeds could have been executed in fav

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.