NELAPATLA RAMAIAH & ORS .versusKAMATAM BIKSHAMAIAH & ORS.

                           [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
  further held that s.47 stood repealed even before 1969;
D
  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
  to appeal. A contempt petition was also filed.
E
       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
  the same being adverse to their interests. The High Court
G
  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 2006.                                E
             P.S. Narasimha, M. Srinivas R. Rao, John Mathew, Abid
        Ali Beeran, P. Paramshwar, Roshmana for the Petitioners.

            Chava Badri Nath Babu, Renu Tyagi, Bimal Roy Jad for
'       Respondents.                                                    F

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

             ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. This SLP is directed against the
        judgment and order dated 20th September, 2005, passed by
        the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.648/          G
        2004, allowing the same and setting aside the judgment and
        decree dated 29.3.2004, passed by the 2nd Additional District
        Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Khammam in A.S. No.17/2002. By
        its judgment, the First Appellate Court had reversed the
        judgment and decree dated 21.8.1999 passed by the Senior        H
    476 SUPREIV'E COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A Civil Judge, Kothagudam, being O.S. No.54 of 1991,
    dismissing the suit.

       2. lnitial~e suit was filed for injunction simpliciter before
  the learned • istrict Munsif, Yallandu. Subsequently, the plaint
  was amended to include the relief for declaration of title and
B
  delivery of poS'session of the plaint schedule property. During
  the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff died and his legal
  representatives were brought on record as the plaintiff Nos. 2
  to 9. Subsequently, the plaintiff No.9 also expired.
c       3. The case made out in the plaint by the plaintiff was that
  he was the owner and possessor of the suit scheduled lands
  and the defendants had no right, title and interest therein, nor
  did they have any right to demand that they be allowed to
  cultivate the land on a crop-sharing basis. The dispute which
D had  arisen regarding the cultivation of lands in question resulted
  in the filing of the suit.
       4. From the facts as disclosed, it appears that on
  25.5.1961 the original plaintiff agreed to sell 3.01 acres in
  Survey No.87 and 92 and 3.13 acres in Survey No.3.08 to one
E
  Bathula Veeraiah and Enika Pitchaiah under an agreement for
  sale and made over physical possession of the lands in
  question to the said two persons. Subsequently, on 15th April,
  1962, the original plaintiff also sold another portion of the plaint
  schedule property to the said two persons under another
F agreement for sale and made over physical possession of the            I   '   -
  said lands to them. Consequently, from the said two dates, the
  original plaintiff was out of possession of the plaint schedule
  property.

G      5. On 5th February, 1968, Bathula Veeraiah and Enika
  Pitchaiah agreed to sell 0.37% acres of land in Survey Nos.284
  and 292, 3 01' acres out of Survey No.87 and 92 and 3.13 acres
  out of survey No.308, forming item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the suit
  schedule ;Jroperty to Mis Yedlapalli Ramaiah and Royalla
H Laxmaiah under an agreement for sale and made over physical
               NELAPATLA RAMAIAH & ORS. v. KAMATAM                     477
                  BIKSHAMAIAH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
          possession of the suit lands to the intending purchasers who         A
          took p9ssession of the suit properties. On 15.8.1969 Yedlapalli
          Ramaiah and Royalla Laxmaiah agreed to sell item No.1 of the
          plaint schedule property to the 2nd defendant, the respondent
          No.8 herein, under an agreement for sale and delivered
          physical possession of the suit lands to him. On the same day,       B
          the said Yedlapalli Ramaiah and Royalla Laxmaiah also agreed
          to sell 2.27 acres in Survey No.92 and 0.14 acres in Survey
          No.87, in favour of the 1st defendant the appellant No.1 herein,
          under an agreement for sale and delivered physical possession
          of the lands to him. Since then the 1st appellant is in              c
          possession of the 1st item of the plaint schedule property. By
          yet another agreement for sale Yedlapalli Ramaiah and Royalla
          Laxmaiah agreed to sell 1.22 acres in Survey No.308 to the
          wife of the defendant No.3, the appellant No.2 herein, under an
          agreement for sale. The defendant Nos. 4 and 5, namely, the          D
          appellant No.5 and respondent No.9, are in possession of the
          remaining 1.22 acres in Survey No. 308.
,..,
                6. As indicated hereinabove, the suit was initially
          dismissed, but was decreed by the 1st appellate Court on the
          finding that all the various transactions were hit by Sections 47    E
          and 50B of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
          1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1950 Act"). It was held that
          the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the lands in
          question through the defendants who had not acquired any right
          to the lands and their possession therein was merely                 F.
          permissive possession.

                7. The High Court allowed the Second Appeal upon
           holding that the possession of the beneficiaries of the various
           transactions involving the land was adverse to the interest of      G
           the plaintiffs and the said transfers were not effected by the
         · provisions of Sections 47 and 50B of the 1950 Act.

               8. The High Court took note of the fact that Section 47 of
          the Act had been repealed from the statute book even before
          1969 and even otherwise the provisions of the Act are                H
   ...
    478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A applicable between landlord and tenant and have no
  application insofar as third parties are concerned. Accordingly,
  the High Court held that the transactions were hit by Section
  47 of the 1950 Act and consequently Section 508 was also not
  required to be invoked. The High Court observed that the
8 original plaintiff had lost his possession in the land on
  25.5.1961 when he executed the agreement for sale and made
  over possession of the lands in question to the intending
  purchaser. Thereafter, possession changed hands several
  times. It was observed that had the defendants claimed directly
c through the original plaintiff No.1 under the agreement of sale
  dated 25.5.1961, it could always be said that they were in
  permitted possession and not in adverse possession which
  was, however, not thA r.ase as far as the suit properties were

D
  concerned, since possession had changed lands at l&ast twice
  and at least from 15.8.1969 till the date of filing of the suit it
                                                                               --
  could be contended that the defendants were in adverse
  possession of the properties as far as the plaintiffs were
  concerned.

         9. The substantial question of law framed in the Second
E Appeal as to whether the transactions in question were hit by
    Sections 47 and 508 of the 1950 Act and whether the plaintiffs
    were entitled to a decree as prayed for, were, therefore,
    answered by the High Court in the Second Appeal in the
    negative.
F
        10. On behalf of the petitioners, it was sought to be pointed
  out that the High Court had erred in reversing the judgment and



G
  decree of the first Appellate Court on the erroneous premise
  that the possession of the defendants in the suit were adverse
  to the interests of the plaintiffs, since all the transferees derived
                                                                               --
  their claims to the lands through the petitioner. It was urged that
  it was on account of the first Agreement to Sell dated 25.5.1961
  that the subsequent occupants of the land acquired possession           ..
  thereof. Their claim, therefore, had to be traced from the said
  Agreement for Sale dated 25.5.1961 and not on the basis of
H
                    NELAPATLA RAMAIAH & ORS. v. KAMATAM                        479
                       BIKSHAMAIAH IALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
              the Agreements for Sale executed in their favour subsequently.           A
              It was urged that the High Court had committed an error of law
              in holding that the possession of the defendants was adverse
              to that of the plaintiffs and permissible in nature.
--..                 11. Even on the question of the applicability of Sections         B
               47 and 508 of the 1950 Act to the transactions relating to the
               suit lands after the initial agreement for sale, it was contended
               on behalf of the petitioners that since the defendants derived
             i the right, if any, to possess the suit lands from the original
               plaintiff, the question of a third party interest did not arise, and,
               accordingly, the High Court was wrong in holding that the
                                                                                       c
               transactions were not hit by Section 47 of the 1950 Act.

                   12. It was, therefore, urged that the judgment and decree
              of the High Court was liable to be set aside.
                                                                                       D
                     13. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other
              {hand, strongly supported the decision of the High Court and
               submitted that the same did not warrant any interference. It was
               submitted that there was no dispute that the suit property
               changed hands at least twice after the initial Agreement for Sale       E
               dated 25.5.1961, which in itself was an indication that such
               possession was hostile and adverse to the interest of the
               plaintiffs. The High Court, could not, therefore, be faulted in
               arriving at the finding that the possession of the defendants was
               adverse to that of the plaintiff and not permissible as submitted
   '
             'on behalf of the plaintiffs.
                                                                                       F

                   14. It was also submitted that the High Court had correctly
              interpreted the provisions of Section 47 of the 1950 Act in their
       ,._    application to the facts of the instant case and did not call for
              any interference.                                                        G

                   15. We have carefully considered the submissions made
             1-0n behalf of the parties and are unable to accept the
             submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. That there
             were a series of transactions involving the suit lands after the          H
    480    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A 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 the same being adverse to their interest. The High
B Court, in our view, correctly held that the. possession of the
  defendants was adverse to the interests of the plaintiff.

        16. As to the question of the applicability of Section 47 of
  the 1950 Act to the several transactions which had taken place
C with regard to the plaint schedule property, it is difficult to accept
  the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that since
  possession of the lands could be traced back to the original
  agreement for sale dated 25.5.1961, it must be held that all the
  subsequent occupants, claimed possessory rights under the
  original Agreement for Sale dated 25.5.1961.
D
        17. Such being the case we see no reason to interfere with
  the judgment and decree of the High Court. The Special Leave
  Petition is, therefore, dismissed, but without any orders as to
  costs. Consequently, the notice issued on the Contempt Petition
E is discharged and the Contempt Petition is also dismissed.
    R.P.                                Special Leave Petition and
                                       contempt petition dismissed.