Holding

Land transferred under a defective title deed remains part of the transferor's holding because the expression "held" in the definition includes ownership as well as possession.

Summary

The respondent, Mohd. Ashrafuddin, owned agricultural land in Andhra Pradesh and transferred portions of it to others under unregistered sale deeds and a gift deed, but omitted these transfers in his declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The Land Reforms Tribunal, ignoring the transfers, held that his holding exceeded the ceiling and ordered surrender of excess land; this order was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court, in revision, held that the transferred land could not be counted in the respondent's holding, relying on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to give the transferee a beneficial interest. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the definition of "holding" in Section 3(i) of the Act and held that "held" includes both ownership and possession, so land transferred under a defective title remains part of the transferor's holding. Consequently, the High Court's view was reversed, the appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's original order was restored.

Issues considered

What is the proper interpretation of the term "holding" under Section 3(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973?
Does land transferred under an unregistered sale deed, where the transferor retains ownership, form part of the transferor's holding for the purpose of ceiling calculations?
Can the same parcel of land be counted in the holdings of both transferor and transferee in different capacities?

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973s. 10, s. 12, s. 3(i), s. 8
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 53A

Subjects

land reformsagricultural holding ceilingdefinition of holdingownership vs possessionunregistered sale deedTransfer of Property ActSection 53ASupreme CourtAndhra Pradesh

Judgment

A 482

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

v.
-.
8 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.
J
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
D 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.
E
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-
F 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~
G ·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
. ANDHRA PRADESH v. ASHARAFUDDIN (Misra, J.) 483

the land in two different capacities. The respondent in the instant case is holding A
--> 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
B
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 butan 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 c
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 ..
D
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]

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.
• F
L.N. Sinha, Attorney General, P.P. Rao and B. Parathasarthy,
for the Appellant

_ P. Govindan Nair, S.K. Mehta, P.N. Puri and MK. Dua, for
the Respondent.

A. V. Rangam for the applicant/interveners. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MISRA J, The present appeal by special leave is directed
against the judgment .and order of the High Court of Andhra
~radesh dated the 17th of September, 1976 allowing a civil revision
B
arising out of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1982j 3 S.C.R.
A (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, hereinarter referred to
as 'the Act'.

The holding of the respondent consisted of survey Nos. 36,
37, 41, 42 and 92, all dry, admeasuring acres 88.46 cents in village
Ghotkuri in district Adilabad. It appears that he had transferred
B 17 acres from survey Nos. 36 and 11 acres and 48 cents from
survey No. 41 to another person under unregistered sale deeds pur-
suant to an agreement for sale and had gifted away survey Nos. 37, lir
42 and 92 to his own son Naimuddin by a document written on a
plain paper.
c ·~

'
Pursuant to· a notice section 8 of the Act the respondent filed
a declaration in respect of his holding. In his declaration, however,
he did not include in his holding the area transferred by hini under
two unregistered sale deeds and the aroresaid gift deed.

D
The Land Reforms Tribunal ignoring the aroresaid transfers
computed his holqing at 1.7692 standard holding. Under the Act
be was entitled to possess one standard holding ·only. He
was, therefore, asked to surrender land equivalent to 0. 7692 stan-
dard holding.
E

The respondent feeling aggrteved took up the matter in appeal
to the Land Reforms Appllate Tribunal. He, however, confined his· II
appeal to the land covered by the two sale deeds in respect of survey
Nos. 36 and 41 and submitted to the finding of the Land Reforms
F Tribunal regarding the gift or survey Nos. 37, 42 and 92. The Appel-·
late Tribunal confirmed the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal and
ignored the sale deeds executed by the respondent in respect of
survey Nos. 36 and 41. The respondent challenged the order of
the Appellate Tribunal by preferring a revision to the High Court.
The High Court in its turn allowed the revision holding that the
G land transferred under the two sale deeds could not he included. in
the holding of the respondent for ascertaining the ceiling area.
The High Court has given the ben.efit of section 53A of the Transfer
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 holding.
H The State of Andhra Pradesh has · come up in appeal to this
Court.
OM PRAKASH v. DIOVIJENDRAPAL (Misra, J.) . 485

The Attorney General appearing for the State has raised only A
-> one contention. According to him, on a correct interpretation of
the definition of 'holding' as given in clause (i) of section 3 of the
Act, the land transferred by the respondent will still continue to Ile
a part of bis holding. In order to appreciate the contention we
have to read the definition of 'holding' along with the explanation
attached to it : B

"3 (i) 'holding' means the entire I.and held by a person-

(i) as an owner ;

(ii) as a limited owner ; c
(iii) as an usufructuary mortgage ;

(iv) as a tenant ;

(v) who is in possession by virtue of a mortgage by condi- D
tional sale or through part performance of a contract
for the sale of land or otherwise, or in one or more of
such capacities ;

and the expression 'to bold land' shall be construed · E
accordingly.

Explanation :-Where the same land is held by one
person in one capacity and by another person in any other
capacity, such land shall be included in the holding of both

-
such persons."
F
t The term 'holding' takes in its fold land held by various persons in
various capacities viz., as an owner ,.as a limi led owner, as an usu-
fructuary mortgagee, as a tenant or as a person in possession by
virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part perfor-
mance of a contract for the sale of land or othcwise, or in one or
more of such capacities. The Explanation appended to the G
definition clearly cont~mplatcs that if the same land is held by one
person in one capacity and by another person in another capacity
such land shall be included in the holding of both such persons.
Obviously, therefore, the same land can be taken to be a Jlllrt of
H
the holding of more persons than one provided they hold it in
different capacities.
- -
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 3 S.C.R.

A Shri P. Govindan Nair appearing for the respondent on the
other hand has contended that the expression 'held' in the definition
of 'holding' contemplates ownership with po.•session and that if this
be so· the transferee who is in possession will be taken to be the
holder of the land transferred, and not the respondent who was the
transferor and who was not in possession. He has also contended
B that the interpretation sought to be put by the Attorney General on
the definition would create an anomalous situation.

The word 'held' is not defined in the Act. We have, therefore,
to go by the dictionary meaning of the term. According to Oxford
c Dictionary 'held' means : to possession to be the owner or
holder or tenant of ; keep possession of; occupy. Thus, 'held'
connotes both ownership as well as possession. And in the context
of the definition it is not possible to interpret the term 'held' only in
the sense of possession. For example, if a land is held by an
owner and also by a tenant or by a person in possession pursuant to
D a contract for sale, the holding will be taken to be the holding of
all such persons. It obviously means that an owner who is not in
actual possession will also be taken to be a holder of the land. If
there was any doubt in this behalf, the same has been dispelled by
the explanation attached to the definition of the term 'holding'.
The explanation clearly contemplates that the same land can be the
E holding of two different persons holding the land in two different
capacities. The respondent in view of the definition certainly is
holding as an owner, alt bough he is not in possession.

It is by now well settled that a person in possession pursuant
to a contract for sale do es not get title to the land unless there ·is
a valid document of title in his favour. In the instant case it has
already been pointed out that the transferee came into possession in
pursuance of an agreement for sale but no valid deed of title was
executed in. hisf avour. Therefore, the ownership remained with the
-
respondent-transferor. But even in ·the absence of a valid deed of
G 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.be is dispossessed by the transferor, be can recover
possession. The transferor cannot file any suit for getting back
possession but all the same he will continue to be the owner of the
H land agreed to be transferred. The respondent, in our considered
opinion, satisfies the conditions contemplated by the definition of
the term 'holding' and the land transferred by him under a defective
ANDHRA PRADESH v. ASHARAFUDDIN (Misra; J.) 487

title deed will form part of his holding. The High Court, therefore,
erred in holding that the land in i possession of the transferee
cannot be 1aken to be a part of tbe holding of the transferor-
responden t.

This takes y_s to the other contention raised by Shri P.
Govindan Nair that the interpretation sought to be put by the
Attorney General on the definition would create an anomalous
position in as much as the same land according to the definition
may form part of the holding of the transferor as well as of the
transferee or of the owner as well as of the tenant.
c
' ·, At the tint flush it may appear to be paradoxical to say that
t~e same land could form part of the holding cf various persons
en\!.£.rated in the definition of 'holding' but on a closer scrutiny
oft. e relevant provisions of the Act the proposition presents no
diffic 1ty. . D
!
'
A reference may be made to sections 10 and 12 of the Act.
1
In so ~far as they are material for the purpose of this case they
read :i
B
1
"10 (I) If the extent of the holding of a person is in
j!xcess of !the ceiling area, the person shall be liable to
;surrender the land held in excess.

(2) The Tribunal shall serve on every person, who
is liable to surrender the land held in excess of the ceiling
' area under sub-section (!), a notiee specifying therein the
eittent of land which such persori has to surrender and
•· requiring him to file a statement within such period not
being less than fifteen days, as it may fix, indicating therein
full particulars of the lands which such person proposes to
G
surrender.

(3) (4) .......................... .

(5) (a) Noth withstanding anything in this section it
shall be open to the Tribunal to refuse to accept the surren-
H
der of any land-
488 SUPRBMF COURT REPORTS [1982] 3 s.c.11..

A (i) which has been converted into non•agricultura\
land and has been rendered incapable of being
used for purposes of agriculture;
/

(ii) the surrender of which is not acceptable on
account of a dispute as to the title to the land or
II an encumbrance on the land or on account of the
land being in the possession of any person men-
tioned in item (ii) or item (v) of clause (i) of .
section 3 or on account of the land proposed to
be surrendered becoming in accessible by reason
c of its severence from the remaining part of the
holding; and

the Tribunal shall, in every such case, serve a notice
on the person concerned requiring him to surrender
any other land in lieu thereof; and thereupon th
D provisions of sub·sections (3) and (4) shall, mutati •
mutandis apply to such surrender : }

Provided that where land proposed to be surrender~d
under this section is burdened with a mortgage, t!he
Tribunal may, on an application made by the mo!rt·
E gagor with the consent of the mortgagee, by ordler,
transfer such mortgage· from the land so proposed '1to
be surrendered to the residuary holding of the mortf48·
gor or to any part thereof. · ;

(b) Where the Iand so surrendered under clause (a)
is also not 'acceptable to the Tribunal, the Tribu-
nal shall, after giving an opportunity to the person
concerned of being · heard, select any other land
'
in lieu thereof, and thereupon, the said land
shall be deemed to have been surrenllered by such
G person."

"12(1) Where any land is surrendered! or is deemed
to have been surrendered under this Act b~ any usufruc-
H tuary mortgagee or tenant, the possession· of such land
shall subject to such rules as may be prescribed revert to
the owner.
ANDHRA PRADESH V. ASHARAFUDDIN (Misra, J.) 489

(2) (3) ................. . A
(4) Where any land is surrendered or is deemed to
have been surrendered under this Act by any limited owner
or by any person in possession by virtue of a mortgage by
conditional sale or through a part performance of contract
for sale or otherwise, the possession of such land shall, B
subject to such rules as may be prescribed, revert to the
owner."

It may be argued on the strength of section IO that if the same land
is included in the holding of two persons in different capacities
both of them may be asked to surrender the excess area and in that
c
case serious prejudice might be caused to one or to both of them.
For example, A is the owner of certain plots and he delivers posses-
sion of a part of his land to B pursuant to an agreement for sale.
According to the definition of 'holding' the land in possession .
of B will be taken to be a part of the holding of A and B D
both. If the land forming part of the holding of A and B is in
excess of the ceiling area, both may be obliged to surrender the
excess area. The legislature, however, has ma.de a provision to
safeguard the interest of the owner in such a case. Section 12 (4)
provides ; "Where any land is surrendered or is deemed to have
been surrendered under this Act by any limited owner or by any E
perscrn in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or
through a part performance of contract for sale or otherwise, the
possession of such land shall, subject to such rules as may be
prescribed, revert to the owner. Sub-section (5) also safeguards
the interest of the mortgagee in possession or a person in possession
in pursuance of a contract for sale and provides : "the owner to F
I whom the possession of the land reverts under sub section (4) shall
be liable to discharge the claim enforceable against the land by the
limited owner or person in possession; and the land surrendered
shall, if held as a security, continue to be the security."

G
· Even so, there may be cases in which some prejudice might
be caused to some tenure holders but that cannot be helped. If the
definition of the term 'holding' is couched in clear and unambi-
gllous language the court has to accept it as it stands, and if it is so
construed, there is not the slightest doubt that the same land can H
be a part of the holding of various persons holding it in different
capacities. When the terms of the . definition are clear and unambi-
490 SUPREME COURT IU!POl.TS (1982) 3 s.c.11.

A guous there is no question of taking extraneous aid for construing
it.

Lastly, Sbri P. Govindan Nair referred to Form No. I in the ·~
rules framed under the Act. He relies on item 8 of that form in
support of bis contention. It reads :

"8. Have all details of all lands owned by others but
held by the declarant and where the declaration is by a
family unit, by all members of : the family unit as limited
owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant, or in possession by
virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part
performance of a contract for the sale of land or other- -r..:-
c wise on the specified date, been furnished in Enclosure . 't l
or·
. . .
We are afraid, item No. 8 of Form l of the rules does not help ithe ·
,
I l

respondent at all. Rather it goes counter to .his content. It env1tge1
D that the same land can be part of the holding or various perso s in
different capacities.
For the foregoing discussion the appeal must succeed'. We,
accordingly allow· the same and set aside the order of the High; Court
.and restore that of the Land Reforms Tribunal. In the circum~tances
E of the case, there will be no order as to casts.

P.B.R. Appeal aliowed.

;