STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus MOHD. ASHRAFUDDIN

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 482 · Decided: 05-03-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
482 
8 
D 
E 
F 
G 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
MOHD. ASHRAFUDDIN 
Marrh 5, 1982 
• 
[A.D. KOlHAL, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND 
R.B. MISRA, JJ.J 
Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on. Agricultural-Holdings) Act 1913-
Section 3(i), Ia and 12-Scope of-" Holding" and 'held'-Meaninlf of. 
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. 
Jn 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 
calJed 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 CQurt 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 holdjng. It was 
contended on behalf of the resrondent that the definition of 'holding' contempla-
tes ownership with possession and if so the transferee in possession will be taken 
to be the holder of tbe 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 deft~ 
·nition of the term 'holding' and the land transferred by him under-a defective 
tit1e deed will form p8rt 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] 
The expression 'held' connotes both ownership as well as possession. In 
H 
the context of the definition it is not possible to interpret term 'held' only in the 
sense of possession. Tbe explanation to the definition of 'holding' clearly con-
temp~ates that the same land can be the holding of two different persons holding 
-. 
• 
' .J
• 
--> 
• 
• 
. ANDHRA PRADESH v. ASHARAFUDDIN (Misra, J.) 
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-EJ 
It is well settled that a person in possession, pursuant to a contract for sale. 
docs not get title to the 1and 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. There• 
fore, 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 get ting back possession but an 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 t11used to 
one or both of them if they were asked to surrender the excess area. To safe-
guard the interest of the owners in such a cast the legislature has made 8 provi .. 
sion 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. [439 C-E; G] . 
But if the definition of the term 'holding' is couched in clear and unambi .. 
guous language the Court bas to accept it as it stands. So construed th~ same 
land can be a part of the holding of various persons holding it in different capa .. 
cities. When the terms of the definition are c1ear and unambiguous there is no 
qliestion of taking extraneous aid for construing it. (489 H. 490 A] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1346 
E 
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 Nai

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