AGNIGUNDALA VENKATA RANGA RAOversusINDUKURU RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

                             [2017] 4 S.C.R. 816


A                 AGNIGUNDALA VENKATA RANGA RAO
                                      v.
                  INDUKURU RAMACHANDRA REDDY
                       (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
B                      (Civil Appeal No. 5817 of 2012)
                               APRIL 13,2017
        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.)
          Suit:
C        Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiff claiming to be in
  possession of suit land (which was subject-matter of State Ceiling
  Laws) - The defendants set up a title over the suit land on the basis
  of sale-deed dated 16. 7.1975 claiming to have purchased the land
  from the plaintiff - Suit decreed by trial Court - Decree reversed by
D Single Judge of High Court in first appeal - On appeal, held: Jn
   order to claim prohibitory injunction, it is necessary for the plaintiff
   to prima facie prove that his possession over the suit land is legal -
   Since the sale of the suit land vide sale deed dated 16.7.1975 was
   held to be null and void by the Land Ceiling Tribunal, the suit land
   was not available to the plaintifffor its disposal - Thus, the plaintiff
E was not in lawful possession of the suit land - The plaintiff also did
   not come with clean hands having suppressed the fact that he had
   already sold the suit land - Filing of suit, after 22 years from the
   date of passing of the order by Land Ceiling Tribunal, was not
   called for - The suit was also liable to be dismissed on the ground
F that the same was filed without impleading the State as a party -
   The suit was, in fact, a collusive suit filed to frustrate the rights of
   the State - Direction to Land Ceiling Tribunal to take up the case of
   the plaintiff and pass appropriate consequential order, if necessary,
   under the Land Ceiling Act - Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling
   on Agricultural Hofdings) Act, 1973 - s. 7.
G         Constitution of lndia:
           Arts. 133(3) and 143-A - Certificate of appeal granted u!Art.
    143-A - By Single Judge of High Court - Validity of-'- Held: Single
    Judge of High Court has no jurisdiction to grant such certificate in
    the light of restriCtions contained in Art. 133(3).
H
                                      816
        AGNIGUNDALA VENKATARANGARAO v. lNDUKURU                         817
              RAMACHANDRA REDDY (D) BY LRS.


      Practice and Procedure:                                           A
      Finding on fact - Rendered by trial court and first appellate
court - Interference with, by superior courts - Scope of - Held:
Such finding offact should not be interfered with, by superior courts
unless it is against the pleading or evidence or any provision of law
or when it is found to be so perverse or/and arbitrary to the extent    B
that no judicial person of an average capacity can ever record.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. The present appeal is filed on a certificate
granted by the High Court (Single Judge) on the oral application
made by the appellant immediately after the pronouncement of C
the impugned judgment as provided under Article 134-A of the
Constitution. The order granting certificate is a part of the
impugned judgment. The Single Judge of the High Court had
no jurisdiction to grant certificate in the light of restrictions
contained in clause (3) of Article 133 of the Constitution. D
Therefore, the certificate granted by the Single Judge of the High
Court is revoked. However, this appeal is treated as a special
leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Paras 17,
21 and 22) [824-G-H; 825-A; 827-C-D]
      State Bank of India & Anr. v. SB.I. Employees' Union              E
      & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 370 : [1988) 1 SCR 153 - relied
      on.
        2.1 The question as to who is in possession of the suit
property is essentially a question of fact. Such question is required
to be decided on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties
                                                                        F
in support of their respective contentions. Once the Trial Court
renders a finding either way and the same is then appreciated by
the first appellate Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction,
such finding is usually held binding on the second appellate Court
and this Court. It is only when such finding of fact is found to be
against the pleading or evidence or any provision of law or when        G
it is found to be so perverse or/and arbitrary to the extent that no
judicial person of an average capacity can ever record, the same
would not be binding on the higher Courts and may in appropriate
case call for interference. [Paras 25, 26] [827-G-H; 828-A-BJ
                                                                        H
818            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2017] 4 S.C.R.



A           2.2 The appellant (plaintiff) simply abused the process of
      law in filing the suit for permanent injuncti'.ln in relation to the
      suit land against the respondents. The suit was misconceived
      and deserved dismissal on facts and in law. [Para 27) [828-C)
         2.3 The legal effect of the coming into force of the Andhra
 B Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act,
   1973 was that on and after 01.01.1975 (notified date), the appellant
   being the holder of agriculture lands had no right to sell or/and
   transfer the suit land whether for consideration or otherwise. In
   other words, the sale/transfer of agriculture land by the holder of
   the land was prohibited on and after 01.01.1975 by virtue of the
 C provisions of the 1973 Act. In this view of the matter, the sale
   made by the appellant vide sale deed dated 16.07.1975 in favour
   of the respondents in relation to the suit land was null and void.
   [Para 28) [828-D-E)
         2.4 The Tribunal having rightly held in the order dated
 D 21.08.1976 that the sale deed dated 16.07.1975 executed by the
   appellant in favour of the respondents was null and void because
   it was made in contravention of the provisions of the Act and
   secondly, having held that the appellant's total holding was in
   excess of the ceiling limits prescribed in the Act, the suit land
 E was not available to the appellant for its disposal. That apart,
   one of the legal effects that ensued consequent upon passing of
   the order by the Tribunal dated 21.08.1976 was that the character
   of the suit land had changed. It was then in the nature of
   "surrendered" or "deemed surrendered" land in favour of the
   State as prescribed under Sections 10 and 11 and other related
 F provisions of the 1973 Act. [Paras 29, 30) (828-E-H]
           2.5 The litigation, which had ensued during 1995-98
   betWeen the appellant and the respondents under Andhra Pradesh
   Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 in relation to
   the entries of their names in the revenue record (Pass Book)
 G pertaining to the suit land was neither of any consequence and
   nor"\vas of any significance and nor had any impact on the present
   .litigation. It was for the reason that Section 28 of the 1973 Act
   that gives overriding effect to the provisions of the 1973 Act on
   all those laws, which are inconsistent with the provisions of the
 H 1973 Act, had applied to this case. The 1971 Act is one such law
          AGNIGUNDALA VENKATARANGARAO v. INDUKURU                         819
                RAMACHANDRAREDDY (D) BY LRS.


-· and, therefore, any order passed under 1971 Act in relation to A
   the suit land was of no avail to any party and nor it could have
   been made basis for determining the issue of possession of any
   party over the suit land while considering the grant of injunction.
   [Para 31] [829-A-C]
         2.6 The appellant did not come to the Civil Court with clean B
   hands inasmuch as he suppressed the material fact that he had
   already sold the suit land much prior to filing of the suit, to the
   respondents and, therefore, had no subsisting interest in the suit
   land. Indeed filing of the civil suit by the appellant, almost after
   22 years from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal,
   was totally uncalled for. In fact, it was a collusive suit, filed to C
   frustrate the rights of the State which had accrued in State's favour
   in the suit land by virtue of the order dated 21.08.1976 read with
   the provisions of the 1973 Act. [Para 33][829-E-F]
           2.7 A person can transfer only those rights, which he has in
   the property and cannot transfer any rights, which he does not D
   have, would apply to this case. Thus, when the appellant was
   prohibited to transfer any of his rights, title and interest in the
    suit land by virtue of the provisions of the Act to any person - a
   fortiori, the respondents too could not acquire any rights, title
   and interest in the suit land through sale deed dated 16.07.1975 E
   from the appellant and he too was, therefore, in the same position
    like that of the appellant. [Paras 34, 35) [829-H; 830-A-B)
          2.8 In order to claim prohibitory (temporary or permanent)
   injunction, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prima facie prove
   that his possession over the suit land is "legal". Once the            F
   appellant's rights in the suit land stood determined by the Tribunal
   vide its order dated 21.08.1976 under the Act, there did not arise
   any occasion to hold the appellant to be in "lawful possession"
   of the suit land on the date of filing of the suit for considering
   grant of injunction over the suit land against the respondents.
   [Paras 36, 37] [830-B-D]                                               G
        2.9 This being a simple suit for grant of permanent injunction
   between the two private parties in relation to the land which was
   subject matter of the State Ceiling Laws, was also .liable to be
   dismissed on the short ground that any order that may be passed
                                                                          H
.820           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2017] 4 S.C.R.


 A     by the Civil Court would adversely affect and interfere in the
       rights of the State under the 1973 Act, which had not been
       impleaded as party defendant. [Para 38] [830-F]
         2.10 In order to limit filing of such frivolous suits by the
   private parties in relation to agricultural land which are subjected
 B to the State Ceiling Laws, the State of M.P. amended the Code of
   Civil Procedure by Act No. 29 of 1984 w.e.f. 14.8.84. By this State
   amendment, Rule 3-B was added in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC making
   it obligatory upon the plaintiff to implead the State as party
   defendant along with private party defendant in every such suit.
   The amendment further provides that so long as the plaintiff does
 C not implead the State as party defendant in the suit, the Court
   will not proceed with the trial of the Suit. The object behind
   introducing such amendment was to give notice to the State of
   filing of such suit by the holder of the agricultural land which
   would enable the State to defend their rights, which had accrued
 D in State's favour in the land under the Act. In the absence of any
   such rule in operation in the State of A.P., the State remained
   unnoticed of the suit proceedings, which continued in Courts for
   last more than two decades. [Paras 42, 43) [831-D-G)
            Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama Rao & Ors. AIR
 E          1956 SC 593 : [1956) SCR 451; Bhagwati Prasad v.
            Shri Chandramaul AIR 1966 SC 735 : (1966] SCR
            286; Pinninti Kishtamma & Ors. v. Duvvada Parasuram
            Chowdary & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 452 : [2010) 1 SCR
            297; State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam
            (1985) 4 SCC 10 : [1985) 1 Suppl. SCR 63; Annamreddi
 F          Bodayya & Am: v. Lokanarapu Ramaswamy(Dead) by
            L.Rs. 1984 Suppl. SCC 391; Anathula Sudhakar v. P.
            Buchi Reddy(D) by L.Rs. (2008) 4 SCC 594 : [2008] 5
             SCR 331; Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. State of UP. &
            Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 654 : [1998) 2 Suppl. SCR 177;
 G          Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. 1995 Suppl.
            (3) sec 376 - distinguished.
         4. The Tribunal is directed to take up the case of the
   appellant on its Board and pass appropriate consequential order,
   if necessary under the Act, keeping in view the order dated
 H 21.08.1976 of the Tribunal passed in CC No. 23ll/VKD/75 and
        AGNIGUNDALA VENKATARANGARAO v. INDUKURU                            821
              RAMACHANDRAREDDY (D) BY LRS.

take all remedial steps as are necessary in relation to the land           A
held by the appellant, including the suit land. [Para 46] [832-B-
C]
                        Case Law Reference
      (1988) 1 SCR 153                 relied on           Para 18
                                                                           B
      (1956) SCR 451                   distinguished       Para 41
      (1966) SCR 286                   distinguished       Para 41
     . (2010] 1 SCR 297                distinguished       Para 41
      [1985) 1 Suppl. SCR 63           distinguished       Para 41
                                                                           c
      1984 Suppl. sec 391              distinguished       Para 41
      [20081 5 SCR 331                 distinguished       Para 41
      (1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 177          distinguished       Para 41
      1995 Suppl. (3) sec 376          distinguished       Para 41         D
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5817
of 2012.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2011 of the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit No. 4141
of 2003.                                                                   E
      V. V. S. Rao, Sr. Adv., Sridhar Potaraju, Mrs. Vijay Sree Patnaik,
Ms. Sindoora VNL, Ms. Anlcita Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
      B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv., R. Santhanan Krishnan, Lokesh
Sharma, C. S. N. Mohan Rao, Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Amit K. Nain,         F
Ms. G. Madhavi, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal by certificate
is filed by the plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated
28. l 0.2011 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad G
in Appeal Suit No.4141 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the
appeal preferred by the defendants(respondents herein) and reversed
the final judgment and decree dated 22.09 .2003 of the Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Narasaraopet in Original Suit No. 98of19.98.

                                                                           H
822            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017) 4 S.C.R.


A            2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, which
      lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to state few relevant facts
      taken from the appeal paper books.
            3. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the
      defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
B            4. The subject matter of this appeal is an agriculture land measuring
      Ac.13.38 cents in Survey No. 436 and Ac. 9.38 cents in Survey No. 826
      (total land-22 acres 76 cents) situated in -Agnigundala Village of Ipur
      Manda!, District Guntur Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the
      "suit land").
 c        5. The appellant owned several acres of agriculture lands, which
   also included the suit land. The Andhra Pradesh Land Refonns (Ceiling
   on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act") was enacted
   on 01.01.1973. It came into force on 01.01.1975. The appellant being a
   "person" as defined under Section 3(o) of the Act and was holding the
 D land in excess of the limits prescribed under the Act filed a declaration in
   respect of his holding before the Tribunal as required under Section 7 of
   the Act. During the pendency ofhis case before the Tribunal, the appellant
   sold the suit land vide sale deed dated 16.07.1975 to the respondents.
   The sale deed, inter alia, recited that the appellant has also delivered
   possession of the suit land to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 then
 E mortgaged the suit land along with his other lands to the State Bank of
   India and obtained loan wherein the appellant had stood as the guarantor.
          6. The Tribunal, on 21.08.1976, passed an order in CC No.2311/
   VKD/75 under Section 7 of the Act and held inter alia that the appellant
   was holding the land in excess of the limits prescribed in the Act. It was
 F further held that so far as the transfer of the suit land made by the
   appellant in favour of the respondents vide sale deed dated 16.07.1975
   is concerned, the same was void because it was effected by the appellant
   after the Act had come into force which was prohibited under Section
   7(2) read with Section 17 of the Act. The appellant was, therefore,
 G directed to surrender the excess land held by him in favour of the State
   as provided in the Act.
          7. In 1995-1998, i.e., almost after 2 decades from the date of the
   orderof the Tribunal (21. 08 .197 6), another litigation began between the
   appellant and the respondents in relation to the suit land. This was under
 H the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
     AGNIGUNDALA VENKATARANGARAO v. INDUKURU                                    823
 RAMACHANDRAREDDY (D) BYLRS. [AB HAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
                                   .'."•


Books Act, 1971 (for short, "the Act of 1971 ") wherein the issue was A
whose name - the appellant or the respondents be entered in the Pass
Book in relation to the suit land as Pattadar. This litigation ended in
appellant's favour by the orders of the revisionary Court.
       8. On 29 .10.1998, i.e., almost after 22 years from the date of the
Tribunal's order (21.08.1976) the appellant filed a civil suit (O.S.No. 98/ B
1998) against the respondents before the Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Narsaraopet out of which this appeal arises. The suit was for permanent
injunction in relation to the suit land against the respondents. It was
essentially founded on the allegations that the appellant is the owner of
the suit land to the exclusion of all persons including the respondents,
who have no right to interfere in the appellant's possession over the suit C
land. It was averred that the appellant has been and continues to remain
in possession of the suit land and since the respondents are threatening
the appellant to dispossess him from the suit land, hence he was
constrained to file the civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the.
respondents restraining them from interfering in appellant's peaceful D
possession over the suit land.
        9. The respondents filed written statement. They denied the
appellant's claim and set up a title in themselves over the suit land. It
was contended that the respondents purchased the suit land from the
appellant vide sale deed dated 16.07.1975 and since then they have been E
in its possession. It was contended that the respondents on purchase of
the suit land obtained the loan from S.B.l and mortgaged it with the
Bank by way of security for the loan taken. It was also contended that
the appellant is estopped from raising any contention once he sold the
suit land to the respondents and stake any claim over the suit land.
                                                                                F
        10. The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, framed two issues
viz., (1) whether the plaintiff (appellant) is in lawful possession of the
suit land; and (2) whether the plaintiff (appellant) is entitled for injunction
as prayed for?
       11. The Trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 22.09 .2003 decreed       G
the plaintiff's suit. It was held that the sale made by the appellant to the
respondent of the suit land vide sale deed dated 16.07 .1975 (Ex-B-1) is
null and void being in contravention of Section 17 of the Act. It was held
that such sale, even if made, did not convey any right, title and interest in
respondents' favour. It was further held that the plaintiff is in lawful
                                                                                H
824            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A possession of the suit land as he was able to prove his actual possession
  on the basis of evidence adduced by him and hence was entitled to seek
  permanent injunction against the respondents restraining the respondents
  not to dispossess the appellant from the suit land.
         12. Felt aggrieved, the defendants (respondents) filed first appeal
B before the High Court. By impugned judgment and order, the Single
  Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal and while setting aside the
  judgment/decree of the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff
  (respondent before the High Court) then orally prayed to the Single Judge
  to grant leave to file appeal to this Court (Supreme Court) as provided
  under Article 134-A(b) of the Constitution. The Single Judge granted
C "leave" to the plaintiff as prayed. This is how this appeal is brought
  before this Court on the strength of the certificate granted by the High
  Court.
         13. Heard Mr. V. V.S.Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant
   and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
 D We also perused the written submissions filed by the parties.
           14. Learned senior counsel for the appellant (plaintiff), while
   assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment, contended
   that the High Court (Single Judge) erred in reversing the judgment/decree
   passed by the Trial Court. The submission of the learned counsel, in
 E substance, was that the judgment of the Trial Court, which had rightly
   decreed the appellant's suit, should be restored. It is this submission,
   which learned counsel elaborated by pointing out various provisions of
   the two Acts and the exhibits and findings of the two courts below.
              15. In reply, learned senior counsel for the respondents supported
 F    the impugned judgment and l;Qntended that no case is made out to interfere
      in the impugned order and hence appeal deserves to be dismissed.
             16. Before we consider the merits of the case, it is apposite to
      deal with one question which though arises, was not argued by pointing
      out the relevant provisions governing the question.
 G
             17. As mentioned above, this appeal is filed on a certificate granted
      by the High Court (Single Judge) on the oral application made by the
      appellant immediately after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment
      as provided under Article 134-A of the Constitution. The order granting

 H
      AGNIGUNDALA YENKATARANGARAO v. INDUKURU                                825
  RAMACHANDRAREDDY (D) BY LRS. [ABHAYMANOHAR SAPRE, J.]


certificate is a part of the impugned judgment in its concluding Para        A
which reads thus:
     "Learned counsel for the respondent seeks leave of this
Court to prefer an appeal against this judgment.
      Accordingly, leave is granted."
                                                                             B
      18. What is the true interpretation of Articles 133 and 134-A of
the Constitution and who can grant the certificate of fitness to appeal to
the Supreme Court remains no more res integra. It is settled by the
decision of this Court in State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. S.B.I.
Employees' Union & Anr., 1987 (4) SCC 370.
                                                                             c
       19. The facts of this case and the one involved in the SBI case
(supra) are somewhat similar wherein Their Lordships examined the
issue as to whether the certificate granted by the High Court (Single
Judge) satisfied the requirements contained in Articles 133 and 134-A.
Justice Venkataramiah (as His Lordship then was and later became
CJI) speaking for the Bench held thus:                                       D
        2. The certificate contemplated under Article 134-A of the
 Constitution can only be a certificate which is referred to in clause
 (1) of Article 132 or in clause (1) of Article 133 or in sub-clause
 (c) of clause (1) of Article 134 of the Constitution. This is quite
 obvious from the language of Article 134-A of the Constitution.             E
 This case does not fall either under Article 132(1) or under sub-
 clause (c) of Article 134(1) as it neither involves a substantial
 question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution nor it
 is a criminal proceeding. It can only fall, if at all, under Article
 133(1) of the Constitution. Article 133 of the Constitution reads           F
·thus:
      "133. (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from
 any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a
 High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies
 under Article 134-A-
                                                                             G
      (a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of
 general importance; and
      (b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question
 needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
                                                                             H
826           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A           (2) Notwithstanding anything in Article 132, any party
      appealing to the Supreme Court under clause (1) may urge as
      one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of
      law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly
      decided.
 B          (3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall,
      unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme
      Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one judge of a
      High Court."
             3. Clause (3) of Article 133 says that notwithstanding
 c    anything in that article no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law
      otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment,
      decree or final order of one judge of the High Court. Before the
      introduction of Article 134-A of the Constitu.tion by the Forty-
      fourth Amendment of the Constitution there was no express
      provision in Articles 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution
·D    regarding the time and manner in which an application for a
      certificate under any of those articles could be made before the
      High Court. There was also a doubt as to the power of the High
      Court to issue a certificate suo motu under any of those articles.
      Article 134-A was enacted to make good the said deficiencies.
 E    Article 134-A does not constitute an independent provision under
      which a certificate can be issued. It is ancillary to Article 132(1),
      Article 133(1) and Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. That is
      the reason for the use of words "if the High Court certifies under
      Article 134-A" in Article 132(1) and Article 133(1) and for the
      use of the words certifies under Article 134-A in Article 134(1)(c).
 F    The High Court can issue a certificate only when it is satisfied
      that the conditions in Article 132 or Article 133 or Article 134 of
      the Constitution as the case may be are satisfied. In the instant
      case such a certificate could not have been issued by reason of
      clause (3) of Article 133 of the Constitution by the learned Single
 G    Judge.
         4. The fact that in a similar case a certificate had been issued
   by a Division Bench of the High Court consisting of two judges
   in a case decided by the Division Bench did not empower the
   Single Judge to issue the certificate under Article 133(1) of the
 H Constitution in a case decided by him. The restriction placed by
     AGNIGUNDALA VENKATARANGARAO v. INDUKURU                                       827
 RAMACHANDRAREDDY (D) BY LRS. [ABHAYMANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

clause (3) of Article 133 of the Constitution could not be got over A
by relying upon the order of the Division Bench.
      5. We, therefore, revoke the certificate. This petition of
appeal may, however, be treated as a special leave petition under
Article 136 of the Constitution and posted for preliminary
hearing."                                                         B
       20. In our considered opinion, the law laid down in S.B.I case
(supra) would squarely apply to the case at hand because in the instant
case also, the impugned judgment and the certificate of fitness to file an
appeal was passed by the Single Judge of the High Court.
       21. As held in S.B.I. case, such certificate/leave could not have C
been issued/granted by the Single Judge by reason of clause (3) of
Article 133 of the Constitution. In other words, the Single Judge of the
High Court had no jurisdiction to grant certificate in the light of restrictions
contained in clause (3) of Article 133 of the Constitution.
      22. We, therefore, revoke the certificate granted by the Single              D
Judge of the High Court. However, this appeal is treated as a special
leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution as was done by this
Court in S.B.I case (supra). Leave is accordingly granted.
      23. Coming now to the merits of the case, the short question,
which arises for consideration in this appeal and which was also debated           E
before the two Courts below, is who was in possession of the suit land-
the appellant or the respondents on the date of filing of the suit and
whether the appellant (plaintiff) was entitled to claim permanent injunction
against the respondents( defendants) in relation to the suit land.
       24. The Trial Court held the appellant (plaintiff) to be in possession      F
of the suit land and accordingly granted permanent injunction restraining
the respondents (defendants) from interfering in the appellant's possession
over the suit land whereas the High Court in an appeal filed by the
respondents reversed the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the
suit giving rise to filing of this appeal by the plaintiff on certificate.
                                                                                   G
        25. One cannot dispute the legal proposition being well settled
that the question as to who is in possession of the suit property is essentially
a question of fact. Such question is required to be decided on appreciation
of evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective
contentions. Once the Trial Court renders a finding either way and the
                                                                                   H
 828             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 4 S.C.R.


  A same is then appreciated by the first appellate Court in exercise of its
    appellate jurisdiction, such finding is usually held binding on the second
    appellate Court and this Court.
           26. It is only when such finding of fact is found to be against the
     pleading or evidence or any provision oflaw or when it is found to be so
· B' perverse or/and arbitrary to the extent that no judicial person of an average
     capacity can ever record, the same would not be binciing on the higher
     Courts and may in appropriate case call for interference.
             27. Coming to the facts of the case, we are of the considered
     opinion, that the appellant (plaintiff) simply abused the process oflaw in
  c ·filing the suit for permanent injunction in relation to the suit land against
     the respondents. The suit, in our opinion, was misconceived and deserved
     dismissal on facts and in law on the grounds, which are indeed apparent
     on the face of the record of the case as mentioned below.
            28. Firstly, the legal effect of the coming into force of the Act was
   D that on and afterOl .01.1975 (notified date), the appellant being the holder
     of agriculture lands had no right to sell or/and transfer the suit land
     whether for consideration or otherwise. In other words, the sale/transfer
     of agriculture land by the holder of the land was prohibited on and after
     -01.01.1975 by virtue of the provisions of the Act. In this view of the
     matter, the sale made by the appellant vide sale deed dated 16.07.1975
   E in favour of the respondents in relation to the suit land was null and void.
            29. Secondly, the Tribunal having rightly held in the order dated
     21.08.1976 that the sale deed dated 16.07.1975 executed by the appellant
     in favour of the respondents was null and void because it was made in
     contravention of the provisions of the Act and secondly, having held that
   F the appellant's total holding was in excess of the ceiling limits prescribed
     in the Act, the suit land was not available to the appellant for its disposal.
     Indeed its disposal could be done only in accordance with the provisions
     of the Act with the intervention of the State.
           30. That apart, one of the legal effects that ensued consequent
   G upon passing of the order by the Tribunal dated 21.08.1976 was that the
     character of the suit land had changed. It was then in the nature of
     "surrendered" or "deemed surrendered" land in favour of the State as
     prescribed under Sections I0 and 11 and other related provisions of the
     Act.
   H
     AGNIGUNDALA VENKATARANGARAO v. INDUKURU                                829
 RAMACHANDRAREDDY(D)BYLRS. (ABHAYMANOHARSAPRE,J.]


       31. Thirdly, the litigation, which had ensued during 1995-98 between A
the appellant and the respondents under "The Act of 1971" in relation to
the entries of their names in the revenue record (Pass Book) pertaining
to the suit lanq was neither of any consequence and nor was of any
significance and nor had any impact on the present litigation. It was for·
the reason that Section 28 of the Act that gives overriding effect to the
provisions of the Act on all those laws, which are inconsistent witlf the B
provisions of the Act, had applied to this case. The Act of 1971 is one
such law and; therefore, any order passed under the Act of 1971 in
relation to the suit land was of no avail to any party and nor it could have
been made basis for determining the issue of possession of any party
over the suit land while considering the grant of injunction.                C
       32. In other words, no benefit of the order(s), even if passed,
under the Act 1971 could be taken by the parties either way against.
each other in these proceedings by virtue of Section 28 of the A-ct.
Moreover, in our consider.ed view, no proceedings under the Act 1971
could either be initiated or be pursued by the appellant/respondents in D
relation to the suit land after the Act had come into force (01.01.1975).
Even the proceedings under the Act of 1971 were subject to the final
outcome of the proceedings under the Act.
       33. Fourthly, the appellant did not come to the Civil Court with
clean hands inasmuch as he suppressed the material fact that he had E
already sold the suit land much prior to filing of the Suit to the respondents
and, therefore, had no subsisting interest in the suit land. Indeed filing of
the civil suit by the appellant (29.10.1998) almost after 22 years from
the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal (21. 08.197 6) was totally
uncalled for. In fact, it was a collusive suit filed to frustrate the rights of
the State which had accrued in State's favour in the suit land by virtue of F
the order dated 21.08.1976 read with the provisions of the Act Such
frivolous suit, in our considered opinion, deserved rejection at its threshold.
       34. Fifthly, the Trial Court and the High Court having held on the
strength of Tribunal's finding recorded in the order 21.08.1976 which
has attained finality that the appellant was not the owner of the suit land, G
the respondents too did not acquire any right, title and interest in the suit
land through sale deed dated 16.07.1975. It being a settled principle of
law that a person can transfer only those rights, which he has in the
property and cannot transfer any rights, which he does not have would
apply to this case.                                                           H
830             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017J 4 S.C.R.


A        35. In other words, when the appellant was prohibited to transfer
  any of his rights, title and interest in the suit land by virtue ofthe provisions
  of the Act to any person - a fortiori, the respondents too could not
  acquire any rights, title and interest in the suit land through sale deed
  dated 16.07.1975 from the appellant and he too was, therefore, in the
B same position like that of the appellant.
             36. Seventhly, once the appellant's rights in the suit land stood
      determined by the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.08.1976 under the
      Act, there did not arise any occasion to hold the appellant to be in "lawful
      possession" of the suit land on the date of filing of the suit (29.10.98) for
      considering grant of injunction over the suit land against the respondents.
c
         37. It is a settled principle oflaw that in order to claim prohibitory
  (temporary or permanent) injunction, it is necessary for the plaintiff to
  primafacie prove apart from establishing other two ingredients, namely,
  irreparable loss and injury that his possession over the suit land is "legal".
  In this case, it was not so and nor it could be for the simple reason that
D as far back on 21.08.1976, the Tribunal had already declared the land
  held by the plaintiff to be in excess of the ceiling limits prescribed under
  the Act. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was neither holding the
  land nor could he be held to be in its lawful possession so as to enable
  him to exercise any ownership rights against any other private party
E over the suit land. The appellant had then very limited rights left to
  exercise under the Act in relation to the suit land and such rights were
  available to him only against the State. Such is not the case here.
              38. Lastly, this being a simple suit for grant of permanent injunction
      between the two private parties in relation to the land which was subject
 F    matter of the State Ceiling Laws, was liable to be dismissed on the short
      ground apart from many others as detailed above that any order that
      may be passed by the Civil Court would adversely affect and interfere
      in the rights of the State under the Act, which had not been imp leaded as
      party defendant.

 G           39. Learned counsel for the appellant took us to the various
      documents including orders of the Revenue authorities to show that it
      was the plaintiff who was in possession of the suit land on the date of
      filing of the suit as was rightly held by the Trial Court and, therefore, this
      Court should restore the finding of the Trial Court.
             40. We are afraid we cannot re-appreciate the documentary or/and
H
     AGNIGUNDALA VENKATARANGARAO v. lNDUKURU                                        831
 RAMACHANDRAREDDY(D)BYLRS.[ABHAYMANOHARSAPRE,J.)

oral evidence again in our appellate jurisdiction. Firstly, it is not permissible   A
for want of any case made out to that effect and secondly, it is not
considered necessary in the light of what we have held above.
       41. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on several
decisions in support of his submission such as NagubaiAmmal & Ors.
vs. B. Shama Rao & Ors., AIR 1956 SC 593, Bhagwati Prasad vs. B
Shri Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735, Pinninti Kishtamma & Ors.
vs. Duvvada Parasuram Chowdary & Ors. 2010 (2) SCC 452, State
of Tamil Nadu vs. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, 1985 (4) SCC 10,
Annamreddi Bodayya & Anr. vs. Lokanarapu Ramaswamy(Dead)
by L.Rs. 1984 Suppl SCC 391, Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi C
Reddy(D) by L.Rs., 2008 (4) SCC 594, Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs.
State of U.P. & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 654 and Karnail Singh vs. State
of Haryana & Anr., (1995) Suppl(3) SCC 376. We have perused these
decisions and find no quarrel with the general proposition of law laid
down therein. In our view, all the decisions cited are distinguishable on
facts and hence have no application to the facts of this case.            D
       42. It is pertinent to mention that in order to limit filing of such
frivolous suits by the private parties in relation to agricultural land which
are subjected to the State ceiling laws, the State of M.P. amended the
Code of Civil Procedure by Act No. 29of1984 w.e.f. 14.8.84. By this
State amendment, Rule 3-B was added in Order 1 Rule 10 making it                    E
obligatory upon the plaintiff to implead the State as party defendant along
with private party defendant in every such suit. The amendment further
provides that so long as the plaintiff does not imp lead the State as party
defendant in the suit, the Court will not proceed with the trial of the Suit.
The object behind introducing such amendment was to give notice to the
State of filing of such suit by the holder of the agricultural land which           F
would enable the State to defend their rights, which had accrued in State's
favour in the land under the Act.
       43. In the absence of any such rule in operation in the State of
A.P., the State remained unnoticed ·of the suit proceedings, which
continued in Courts for last more than two decades.                     G
      44. In view of foregoing discussion, we uphold the conclusion
arrived at by the High Court on our reasoning given supra. As a
consequence, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
        45. Before parting, we consider it apposite to state that the               H
832             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 4 S.C.R.


A appellant and the respondents made frantic efforts to somehow retain
    the suit land to them and keep the land away from the clutches of The
   Act. With this aim in view, they got the suit land involved in this litigation
  -1>ince ~76. All this was done without notice to the State Authorities.
             46. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to take up the case of the
B appellant on its Board and pass appropriate consequential order, if
  necessary under the Act keeping in view the order dated 21.08.1976 of
  the Tribunal passed in CC No. 2311/VKD/75 and take all remedial
  steps as are necessary in relation to the land held by the appellant including
  the suit land.
c           47. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the
      concerned Tribunal.


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                         Appeal dismissed.