Holding

The High Court was correct in dismissing the appeal on limitation, and the appellant must pursue a separate proceeding to challenge the allocation of the excluded land.

Summary

The appellant, a bona‑fide purchaser of agricultural land in Raidurg, relied on a chain of title tracing back to the original estate holder. A suit filed in 1958 resulted in a preliminary decree that excluded certain items (including the appellant's land) from distribution because they were under revenue enquiry. After 43 years, the legal heirs filed applications seeking recognition of assignments and a final decree that allocated the excluded land to them, which the single judge of the High Court allowed. The appellant appealed the final decree via a Letters Patent Appeal, arguing he was an aggrieved party and that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the appellant could not raise the issue of the excluded land in a Letters Patent Appeal, as the proper remedy was to institute a separate suit, and affirmed the High Court's dismissal on limitation grounds. The appeal was dismissed, with the court noting the appellant may pursue separate proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant, as a purchaser, is an aggrieved party entitled to file a Letters Patent Appeal against the final decree.
Whether the limitation period bars the appellant's appeal.
Whether the inclusion of land excluded in the preliminary decree can be contested in the Letters Patent Appeal.
Whether the appropriate remedy is a separate suit rather than a Letters Patent Appeal.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Letters Patent AppealLimitationPreliminary decreeFinal decreeBona fide purchaserAgricultural landSeparate proceedingCivil Procedure Code

Judgment

i--
(2008] 2 S.C.R. 699

M. PURNACHANDER RAO A
... ...,._ v.
SRI NAWAB MAZAHARUDDIN KHAN (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1121 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 11, 2008
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

_.lo( Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
'. Sale of agricultural !and - Appellant purchased the land
in question - Title and claim under enquiry by Revenue - c
Legal heirs of original estate holder filing suit for declaration
of assignment in respect of land in question in their favour -
lq
Legal representatives/alleged assignee filing application after
43 years for declaration of assignment in their favour and to
direct authorities to mutate the land in their names in Revenue D
records; to deliver possession; and for passing final decree -

.. ~ Allowed by Single Judge of the High Court - Challenged by
vendee by filing Letters Patent Appeals - Dismissed by
Division Bench of High Court on ground of limitation - On
appeal, Held: Appellant purchased the land in question from E
vendor heavily relying on his title from original estate holder -
However, the Issues that land in question is excluded from the
Schedule of the property in the suit and passing of final decree
in favour of legal representatives of original estate holder in
violation of preliminary decree, can not be agitated in Letters F
Patent Appeal before High Court - Appellant could initiate
. . "I
separate proceedings before the appropriate Court to vindicate
his grievance - Directions issued.
Letters Patent Appeal - Scope of
G
Appellant is a bona fide purchaser of certain
agricultural land at village Raidurg Paigah for valuable
consideration under a registered sale deed in the year
1996. A suit was filed in the year 1958 before the High
699 H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. {

A Court by the legal heirs/sharers of the land in question
for declaration of assignment of the land in their favour. A t- ...
preliminary decree was passed by the High Court
excluding item Nos. 230 to 254 from the Schedule of the
properties to the suit including the land in question since
B the properties indicated in these items were under enquiry
with the Board of Revenue. The legal representatives of
the legal heirs, after a lapse of 43 years, filed applications
claiming recognition of the Assignments in their favour;
~
to direct the Collector to mutate the names of the . ~
Assignees in the Revenue Records pertaining to the land
c
in question; and to direct the District Judge to deliver
possession of the said land to the Assignees. Single
Judge of the High Court allowed the petitions contrary to
the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and other
enactments like the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Registration
D and Stamps Act, Hyderabad Land Revenue Act etc.
Thereafter another application was filed by the petitioners
for passing final decree and the same was allowed by the ~
High Court. However, the appellant was also not made
party to the above proceedings. The respondents started ....
E interfering with the land purchased by the appellant. Being
aggrieved by the orders passed by the Single Judge of
the High Court, appellant filed an appeal, which was
dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Appellant contended that item No.234, the land in
F question which is an excluded property, the action of the
respondents in including the same in the final decree )I.: -1
cannot be sustained; that in such circumstances, he is
an aggrieved person and as soon as he came to know
about the various orders including the final decree, filed
G the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court;
and that the High Court is not justified in dismissing the
appeal on the ground of limitation. ,.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
H HELD: 1.1 Appellant purchased the land in question

" . :~~:
+ M. PURNACHANDER RAO v. SRI NAWAB MAZAHAR. 701
KHAN (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS.

...... ~ by way of sale deed dated 11.10.2003 from the vendor, A
heavily relying on his title from one 'W' who was defendant
No.41 in C.S. No. 7 of 1958 on the file of the High Court. It
is relevant to point out that the appellant himself placed a
memo of compromise which was filed and recorded in
the said suit. The copy of the decree in the said suit shows B
that the suit filed against defendant No.41 was dismissed.
The appellant claims title from defendant N0.41 through
~ various persons. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that
'. the very same property has been shown in the final decree
and allotted to one of the sharers in spite of his c

, possession for several decades cannot be gone into by
the High Court after passing a final decree in the year 2003.
(Para - 9) [705-E, F, G; 706-A, BJ
1.2 The allegation that though the lands in Item
No.232-254 in "Schedule A" to preliminary decree D
concerning defendants 2-12 and 14-22 excluded and
~ shown in the final decree dated 26.12.2003 which is in
violation of the preliminary decree can not be agitated by
filing an appeal before the High Court. The proper remedy
for the appellant is to initiate a separate proceeding and E
the same cannot be questioned by way of a Letters Patent
Appeal before the High Court who is not a party to the
entire proceedings. In those circumstances, this Court is
refrained from considering various details as projected
in the appeal before this Court. Under the circumstances, F
)> ~
the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is agreed to.
However, the appellant is at liberty to initiate separate
proceedings before the appropriate Court to vindicate his
·grievance for which no opinion has been expressed.
(Paras - 9 &10) [706-8, C, D, E]
G
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1121
of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

A OSA (SR) No. 1900/2005 in Appln. No. 1409/2003 in CS No. .... '.
t-
7/1958.
Anoop G. Chaudhary, June Chaudhary, P. Badri Premenath 1
Shakil Ahmed Syed, S.A. Saud and Mohd. Yasir Abbas for the
Appellant.
B
H.N. Salve, R.F. Nariman, Arun Jaitley, L.N. Rao, S. Udaya
Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, H. Venugopal, A. Venayagam,
Hemal K. Sheth (for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.), S. Madhusudhan
)I._
. ,.
Babu, Mukesh K. Giri, R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani,
c Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijaya Kumar, D. Mahesh Babu, Anis
Ahmed Khan, Devendra Singh, Ciccu Mukhopaadhyay,
Shambhu Pd. Singh, Prem Sunder Jha, Manjula Gupta, Anjani
Aiyagari, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla and .J!
T.V. George for the Respondents.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. Sathasivam, J. 1) Leave granted. ,+-

2) This appeal is directed against the order dated
26.04.2005 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at.Hyderabad
E in O.S.A. (SR) No. 1900 of 2005 in and by which the Division
Be'nch dismissed the said appeal on thE> ground of limitation.
The appellant preferred O.S.A. before the Division Bench of
the High Court under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order of the Single Judge dated 26.12.2003 in Application
F No. 1409 of 2003 in C.S. No. 7of1958.
).:_....,
3) According to the appellant, he purchased an extent of 4
acres of agricultural land situated in Sy. No. 46 of Raidurg Paigah
Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh
under a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1996. The appellant's
G title flows from Sri Mala Ramulu and others who have purchased
land under a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1962 from Sri
Waliullah Hussaini. The said Sri Waliullah Hussaini derives title
from his father Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini. Late Sri
Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini was given four villages by the then
H Paigah under the Nizam Rule somewhere in the beginning of
}
M. PURNACHANDER RAO v. SRI NAWAB MAZAHAR. 703
KHAN (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
..... the century. The said Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini, who A
-1
was the estate holder, died in the year 1923. He was survived
by his wife, three sons and four daughters. After his death, the
Court of Wards (Revenue Department), constituted under the
Hyderabad District Court of Wards Act, took custody of the
property of Late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini. The Court of B
Wards will take custody of the property only if it is a private
property. The land in Patta Raidurg was also taken over by the
--" Court of Wards after the death of Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini.
" .
In 1925, there was a compromise between the legal heirs of
late Sri Moulvi Syed Akbar Hussaini. The properties located in c
Yenkapally Maqta and Patta Raidurg were allotted to Sri
Waliullah Hussaini and other sisters and brothers and Maqta
Karimnagar was allotted to other members of the family. After
the compromise, the other shareholders sold away their rights
in favour of Waliullah Hussaini and two minors, namely, Sri Syed
D
Akbar Nizamuddin and Sri Syed Aminuddin Hussaini, under
-;.. registered sale deeds.
4) It is the further claim of the appellant that the land in
Raidurg village is a Patta land (private property). In view of the
fact that Sri Waliullah Hussaini purchased other shareholders' E
rights over the property, except Sri Waliullah Hussaini no other
person got any right. Sri Waliullah Hussaini paid land revenue
from 1950 onwards and he sold the same in favour of the
appellant's predecessors in title Sri Mala Ramulu and others
after obtaining permission in the year 1962 as per the sale deed F
t . . . ,,. dated 12.11.1962. They, in turn, sold the property in favour of
the appellant's vendors.

5) It is the further case of the appellant that he is a bona
fide purchaser of land to an extent of 4 acres in Survey No. 46
of village Raidurg Paigah District Ranga Reddy, Andhra G
Pradesh for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed
in the year 1996. The Civil Suit was filed on the original side
"" jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.S. No. 7 of
1958. The suit was filed by the legal heirs who are the sharers
of the property belonging to the estate as "Asmanja Paigah". A H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
~
A preliminary decree was passed on 06.4.1959 and in the list of ,.... .
properties shown in "A" Schedule to the preliminary decree, Item ~
No. 234 is shown as Raidurg and in the preliminary decree item
Nos. 230 to 254 have been excluded since the properties were
under enquiry with the Board of Revenue as to the title and claim.
B Item No.234 shown as Raidurg is also excluded from the
distribution in the preliminary decree. The legal representatives
in the year 2002, after a lapse of 43 years, filed applications
bearing Nos. 1144to1147 of2002 in C.S. No.7of1958 claiming -,.,._
. k
(1) recognition of the Assignments in favour of respondent Nos.
c 21 to 40; (2) implead the respondents (assignees) as
respondents; (3) direct the Collector, R.D.O., M.R.O., to mutate
the names of the Assignees in the Revenue Records pertaining
to Survey Nos. 37, 39 to 43 and 45 to 49 in all admeasuring
143 acres 11 guntas of land situated in Raidurg Village,
Serilingampally Manda!, R.R. District and (4) direct the District
D
Judge, Ranga Reddy to deliver possession of the above land
to the Assignees. Without any enquiry, the learned single Judge,
~
by order dated 09.10.2002, contrary to the provisions of the
Civil Procedure Code and other enactments like the Urban Land
Ceiling Act, Registration and Stamps Act, Hyderabad Land
E Revenue Act etc., allowed those applications. The State
Government which was a party in the preliminary decree dated
06.04.1959 was not made a party in the abovementioned
applications filed in the year 2002. Thereafter another >

application was filed bearing No. 1409 of 2003 in C.S. No.7 of
F 1958 for passing final decree and the same was allowed on
26.12.2003. ..., -of \

6) The appellant is a stranger to the above proceedings.
By virtue of the order passed as stated above, the respondents
started interfering with the land purchased by the appellant and
G
coming to know about the above orders passed by the High
Court and being aggrieved by the orders passed in Application
No. 1409 of 2003, filed an appeal in OSA (SR) No. 1900 of
2005. By the impugned order, the Div,ision Bench of the High
Court sustaining the office objection with regard to the limitation
H
M. PURNACHANDER RAO v. SRI NAWAB MAZAHAR. 705
KHAN (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

in filing the appeal and finding that there is no satisfactory A
~
~ explanation, dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same, the
appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court.
7) We have heard Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, Ms. June
Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.
Harish N. Salve, Mr. R.F. Nariman, Mr. Arun Jaitely, Mr. L. N. B
Rao, learned senior counsel and other learned counsel for the
respondents.
, ~. 8) Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
after taking us through the chequered history of the case and by c
drawing our attention to the various proceedings submitted that
Item Nos. 230-254 which have been excluded in the preliminary
. . decree and item No.234 being Raidurg land which is an
excluded property, the action of the respondents in including
the same in the final decree cannot be sustained. In such
D
circumstances, according to him, the appellant is an aggrieved
person and as soon as he came to know about the various
~ orders including the last one, namely, the final decree, filed the
original side appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
He further contended that the High Court is not justified in
dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. E

9) We have perused all the earlier proceedings as well as
documents in respect of the property in question. It is not in
dispute that the appellant, who purchased 4 acres of land by
way of sale deed dated 11.10.2003 from his vendor, heavily F
relied his title to the same from Sri Walliullah Hussaini who was
~-- defendant No.41 in C.S. No. 7 of 1958 on the file of the High
Court. It is relevant to point out that the appellant himself placed
a memo of compromise which was filed and recorded in C.S.
No. 7 of 1958. The copy of the decree in C.S. No.7 of 1958
dated 6.4.1959 which is available on pages 156-232 in the G
S.L.P. Paper Book (Part II) filed as additional document by the
~ appellant in this Court shows that the suit filed against Sri
Waliullah Hussaini was dismissed. Clause 14 which is available
at page 198 of the said paper book reads as under:
H
/\
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. '
A "That the plaintiff's suit against defendants 27 to 49 be
and hereby is dismissed."
It is not in dispute that defendant No.41 is Sri Waliullah
Hussaini from whom the appellant claims title through various
persons. In view of the same, the claim of the appellant that the
8 very same property has been shown in the final decree and
allotted to one of the sharers in spite of his possession for several
decades cannot be gone into by the High Court after passing a
final d~cree even in the year 2003. Likewise, the allegation that . "
though the lands in Item No.232-254 in "Schedule A" to
C preliminary decree concerning defendants 2-12 and 14-22
excluded and however shown in the final decree dated t
26.12.2003 which is in violation of the preliminary decree can
not be agitated by filing an appeal before the High Court. We
are of the view that the proper remedy for the appellant is to
D initiate a separate proceeding and the same cannot be
questioned by way of a Letters Patent Appeal before the High
Court who is not a party to the entire proceedings. In those
circumstances, we refrain from considering various details
projected before us.
E 10) In the light of the above discussion, we agree with the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court and dismiss the above
appeal. However, the appellant is at liberty to initiate separate
proceedings before the appropriate Court to vindicate his
grievance for which we express no opinion. With the above
F observation, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.