Holding

Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 has overriding effect and, under Section 15(6), any sale of land to a cultivating tenant that contravenes the statutory notice and first‑purchase requirement is voidable, rendering the post‑amendment sale deeds invalid notwithstanding prior agreements.

Issues considered

Whether Section 15(6) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 applies to sale deeds executed after its incorporation when the agreement of sale was entered into before the amendment.
Whether Section 17 of the Act overrides pre‑existing agreements, customs or court orders, rendering such sales voidable.
Whether the tenant’s alleged default in rent payment affects the applicability of Section 15.
Whether the High Court correctly dismissed the civil revision petitions without considering the effect of Sections 15(6) and 17.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956s. 11, s. 15(6), s. 17

Subjects

tenancylandlord-tenantfirst purchase rightSection 15Section 17overriding legislationvoidable saledefaultcivil revisionAndhra Pradesh Tenancy Act

Judgment

[2008) 12 S.C.R. 484

A RAMISETTY NARAIAH r--
v.
POLURI VENKATA SUBBAMMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5193-5195 of 2008)
AUGUST 22, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
" (

Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 -
c ss. 15(6) and 17 -Applicability of - Property leased out to
tenant - Subsequently, change in ownership of land -
Agreement of sale executed prior to incorporation of s. 15,
whereby cultivating tenant has first right to purchase the land
leased to him - Registered sale deeds executed subsequent
to the enactment of s. 15 - Tenants' seeking declaration of
D
their rights - In appeal, High Court .I-Jo/ding that since
agreement to sell was purportedly executed prior to
incorpor~tion of provision, s. 15 not applicable - Effect of
provisions and specific reference to agreements not ~
considered - Also High Court did not deal as to whether it
E could have gone into question of default when vendor did
...,
not want to pursue the petition - Hence, matter remitted to
High Court to dispose of the petitions afresh.
The original landlord leased out the schedule lands
F to the appellant on rent. Appellant came to know that
the husband of respondent no. 1 and 2 had purchased
the schedule lands from the wife of the original Landlord .....
I

and they would evict him. He filed suit for permanent
injunction as also application for temporary injunction ·
against respondents no. 1 to 3. Thereafter, appellant came
G
to know that respondent no. 3 had agreed to sell the
schedule lands to the husbands of the respondents no.
1 and 2 by agreements of sale dated 10.9.1979, to ~-
discharge his debts. Appellant continued in possession
H 484
RAMISETTY NARAIAH v. POLURI VENKATA 485
->+
SUBBAMMA & ORS.

of the lands and was cultivating the same. Appellant A
was granted temporary injunction. Respondent no 1 to
;,
3 filed appeal which was dismissed. Meanwhile, on
01.07.1980, s. 15 was incorporated in the Andhra Pradesh
(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. On 17.01.1981, the
t respondent no. 3 sold the schedule lands to respondent B
• no. 1 and 2 by registered sale deeds. But still the
appellant was in possession of the lands and he was
cultivating the same. Thereafter, appellant filed Andhra
Tenancy Case on the ground that the sale deeds
executed on 17.01.1981 are void, be.ing contrary to s. 15 c
of the Act and sought declaration that he is entitled to
first purchase the schedule lands. Respondents then
filed A. T.C. seeking eviction· of appellant and delivery of
possession of the schedule lands as the appellant
defaulted in payment of rents and the appellant had re-
D
delivered the possession of the schedule lands to the
father of respondent no. 3. On 07 .11.1988, the suit for
.. permanent injunction was dismissed. Thereafter, A.T.C
filed by the appellant was dismissed and that of the
respondent was allowed. The· court held that as the
alleged agreements of sales are prior to the enactment E
of s. 15 of Act and as registered sale deeds are executed
subsequent to the enactment of s. 15 of the Act, the
same are not hit by s. 15 of Act; that the appellant
committed default in payment of rents; and that there
~ was no proof that the appellant surrendered the lands F
by way of a delivery receipt. In 1992, the appellant filed
appeals which were allowed. In 1997, the appellant
sought direction against respondents 1 to 12 to execute
a registered sale deed for the schedule property in his
favour which was allowed later. Meanwhile, the G·
>-> respondents 1 to 3 filed C.R.P no. 5692 and .5695 of
1998, Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed C.M.P. in C.R:P. High
Court allowed the C.R.Ps., and dismissed the C.M.P.
Hence the present appeal.
H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A Appellant-tenant contended that the object of s.- 15
of the Act is to protect the interest of the cultivating
tenant, therefore, in case the landlord intends to sell the
land, he has to first give option to the cultivating tenant; '
(

that the High Court erred in holding that since the alleged
B agreement for sale was executed prior to introduction
of the provision, s. 15 was not applicable; that even if
there was an agreement earlier to the introduction of
the provision, it is of no consequence as otherwise the
provisions of s. 17 would become redundant; that the
c High Court did not consider the question whether the
sale deeds could have been executed in favour of the
respondents 1 and 2 when admittedly the purported
agreement for sale was entered into with their respective
husbands; that R-3 had filed an application to the effect
that he does not want to press the petition before the
0
High Court, on that basis, his name was deleted from
the array of parties and he was added as respondent
No.4; that the question of default therefore became
redundant as the ·District Court dismissed the eviction
petition which was filed on the ground of default; and
E that the High Court did not consider the effect of the
prayer made by the respondent No. 3, who was a t
petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition .
Respondents contended that High Court's judgment
F is iri order because as per s.11 of the Act even if there
is a change in ownership of the land the cultivating
tenant continues the tenancy on the same terms as
before; that s. 15 shall come into operation only when
there is an intention to sell the land; and that in the
G instant case intention was already expressed and
agreement for sale was executed prior !o introduction
of the s.15 of the Act.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: Section 17 of the Andhr.a Pradesh (Andhra
H
..
RAMISETTY NARAIAH v. POLURI VENKATA 487
SUBBAMMA & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT]
~

Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 has overriding effect. As a bare A
reading of the provision makes it clear, it inter-alia
provides that notwithstanding anything inconsistent
contained in any pre existing law, custom, usage,
agreement or decree or order of the court, the provisions
of the Act shall have effect. Similarly, sub-section (6) of B
f-'
Section 15 provides that any sale of the land by the
~
landlord in contravention of Section 15 shall be voidable
to the option of the cultivating tenant. The High Court
came to an abrupt conclusion that since the agreement
to sell was purportedly executed prior to the introduction c
of the provision, they have no relevance. There is no
discussion as to the effect of the provisions, and the
specific reference to agreements. Additionally, the High
Court did not deal with the aspect as to whether it could
have gone into the question of default when respondent
D
No. 3 who was shown as the petitioner in the Civil
Revision Petition did not want to pursue the petition.
_, Hence, the matter is remitted to the High Court to hear
and dispose of the Civil Revision Petitions afresh. [Paras
7 and 8] [495,F-H; 496,,A-B;]
""" CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
E

5193-5195 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.092005 of
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
;_ in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 5692 and 5695 of 1998 F

P.P. Rao, G.V.R. Choudhary, Ambati Sudhakar and K.
Shivraj Chaudhuri for the Appellant.
S.S. Prasad, P. Srinivas Rao, Jayanti Natrajan, Kanchan
Kaur Dhodi and Anjani Aijagari for the Respondents. G
~~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.CR.
/

t:
A learned Single Juc;Jge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
allowing the Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 5692 and 5695 of
1998 filed by the respondent while dismissing the CMP No.
L
6683 of 2005 filed by the appellant.
3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are
B as follows: ~

In April, 1975 the appellant herein had taken the petition ~
schedule lands which are to an extent of Acres 5-36 cents of >-
agricultural land situated at Pernamatta village, Santhalapadu, <
,-

c Patta · No.2182- Survey No.158/2, Ongole District with the ~
following boundaries - East : Government Donka, South: Land
of lnabathana Ramaiah, West : Land of Gajula Kotaiah, North:
Land of Adapal Jogaiah and Venkatarao. Since the time he
had taken on lease the above mentioned lands, he has been
regular in payment of Maktha which is a lump sum amount of
D
Rs.1200/- towards rent per year to the schedule lands.
In 1979 as the appellant came to.. know that the husband
of 2nd respondent herein i.e Mannam Sundarannaiah and one ~

Adapa Venkatarao were contending that they had purchased ~

E the schedule lands from G. Seetharamamma who is the wife '
of the original Landlord and from whose brother the appellant
1

had taken the schedule lands on lease after his death. As the
respondents were contending that they will evict, appellant
filed suit O.S No. 791/1979 on the file of District Munsif against
F 1st to 3rd respondents herein seeking permanent injunction
against them and also filed an I.A. No. 3963 of 1979 seeking -1.:
temporary injunction.
In the suit for the first time it came to the knowledge of
the appellant herein that the 3rd respondent herein, to discharg~
G the debts had agreed to sell the schedule lands to the husbands
of the 1st and 2nd respondents herein by way of agreements ~.- "
of sale dated 10.9.1979. Possession continued to remain with f
the appellant herein and he was cultivating the petition schedule
lands.
H
RAMISETTY NARAIAH v. POLURI VENKATA 489
SUBBAMMA & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT]

On 13.11.1979 the temporary injunction which was A
granted in favour of the appellant was allowed and the
temporary injunction was made absolute, against which an
Appeal C.M.A. No. 111/1"979 was filed by the 1 to 3 respondent
herein in the court of District Court Munsif, Ongole.
On 01.07.1980 Section 15 was incorporated in the B
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (in short
the 'Act').
On 11.12.1980 the appe_al C.M.A. No.111/ 1979 which
was filed by the respondents herein challenging the injunction c
order dated 13.11.1979 was also dismissed. '· ·
On 17.01.1981, the 3rd respondent herein contrary to
Section 15 of the Act, sold the Southern half of the schedule
lands to the 1st respondent herein and Northern half of the
schedule lands to the 2nd respondent herein by executing D
registered sale deeds. But still the appellant was in possessfon
of the lands and he was cultivating the same.
..
On 17.11.1981 the a1wellant filed A.T.C. (Andhra Tenancy
Case) which was numbered in the year 1982 and the number E
of the case was A.TC. No.2 of 1982 on the file of the Court
of District Munsif, Ongole (Special Officer Constituted under
Andhra Tenancy Act) and in the A.TC. he contenqed that the
sales are contrary to Section 15 of the Act and as such they
are void and sought declaration from the court (a) that he is
entitled to first purchase the schedule lands, (b) that the sale F
deeds executed on 17.01.1981 are void (c) that respondents
should execute proper sale deeds in favour of the appellant
and convey the schedule lands to him. · ·
In ATC 2/1992 the responde"nts herein filed their counter· G
wherein they contended that the appellant defaulted in payment
of rents and they also stated that the schedule property was
sold to the respondents 1 and 2 by way of registered sale
deeds dt. 17.01.1981.
On 21.09.1984, the respondents herein filed A.TC. No. H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
·--
A 44 of 1984 under Section 13(a) of Act and sought for eviction
-t-
~
of the appellant and delivery of possession of the schedule
lands contending that the appellant defaulted in payment of
rents from 1978 to 1984. In this petition it was also contended
that on 5.5.1979 the appellant had written a letter and re-
B delivered possession of the schedule lands to the 3rd
respondent's father and subsequently after the death of the ~
3rd respondent's late father, the 3rd respondent herein leased ,.'
out the schedule lands to one A Vankata Rao on 15.06.1979
for a period of. one year.
c In the year 1984 the appellant herein filed statement in .._
A.T.C. No.44/1984 denying the contentions pleaded by the
(...._
respondents and he also contended that the surrender
document alleged to have been executed by the appellant
herein is a false and forged one and that it is a concocted
D document and that as a counter blast to the suit O.S. 791/
t
1979 as well as A.T.C. 2 of 1982, the respondents herein filed I'
the present A.TC. 44/1984 and he also contended that as per ~
the Court's order he had deposited the rents in the Court. In
~ ~
the· counter he also contended that the sale of schedule lands
E are bad in the eye of law as he was not offered first option to .._
'
purchase the same. .,
I
i
On 07.11.1988, the learned Additional District Munsif, l
f
Ongole dismissed O.S.No.791/1979 holding that the Court
1--
had no jurisdiction as the dispute in the suit relates to a dispute
F between a tenant and a landlord and that it can be decided ~
only by the Special Officer under the provisions of Act. -k
Both. the AT.Cs were clubbed together and common
evidence was recorded and on behalf of the appellant herein
l.
two witnesses were ~xamined and on behalf of the respondents
G
herein two witnesses were examined and exhibits Al to A30
were marked and no exhibit and/or any document was marked +·
by the respondents herein.
On 15.05.1992 the Court of the Special Officer for
H Tenancy Cases, Ongoie (Principal District Munsif, Ongole)
RAMISETTY NARAIAH v. POLURI VENKATA 491
SUBBAMMA & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT]
4-
dismissed A.TC No.2/1982 filed by the appellant herein and A
allowed A.TC. No.441/1984 filed by the respondents herein
taking the view that as the alleged agreements of sales are
prior to the enactment of Section 15 of Act and as registered
sale deeds ·are executed subsequent to the enactment of
Section 15 of the Act the same are not hit by Section 15 of B
~ Act. The Trial Court also held that the appellant also committed
;...
default in payment of rents. The Court however held that there
is no proof that the appellant surrendered the lands by way of
a delivery receipt on 05.05.1979 and no such delivery receipt
was filed. c
In the year 1992 the appellant herein aggrieved by the
orders passed in A.T.C. No. 2/1982 and A.T.C. No. 44/1984
filed AT.A. No. 8 of 1992 and cross objections were filed by
the respondents 1 and 2 herein against the orders passed in
A.T.C. No. 44/1984 and the appellant herein filed A.TA. No.9/ D
1992 and cross objections were filed by the respondents 1
and 2 herein against the orders passed in A.TC. No.2/1982
~ On 19.04.1997, the Court of District Judge, Ongole on
appreciation of facts, evidence and law allowed both the
appeals i.e AT.A. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1992 filed by the appellant E
herein and dismissed both the cross objections field by the
respondents herein. In its order the appellate Court has
specifically held that there is only recital in the sale deeds
about the agreement of sale. The agreements are not filed.
The recital about the sale agreement is made in the sale F
~ deeds only to avoid the benefit of Section 15 of the amended
Act to the tenant. Admittedly, Exhibits A2 and A3 sale deeds
were executed after the amendment Act came into force. Even
if there is an agreement of sale by the time of 01.07.1980 in .
favour of the husbands of vendees, the landlord should have G.
issued notice as contemplated UIS. 15 (1) of the Act as the
-+ sale had not been completed. Section 15(6) of the Tenancy
Act refers to only sale, but not agreement of sale. Though sale
can be made under a registered document, consent was not
obtained prior to the amended Act and also no suit for specific H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008)12 S.C.R.
. -t-
~
A performance was filed and that it is not k_nown why the
purchases under the agreement of sale on 10.9.1979 kept
quite for about one year and four months in obtaining the sale
deeds. in the name of their nominees. The circumstances under
which the agreements of the sale were executed and obtained
. B sale deeds in the name of the wives of the agreement holders ~
and filing of A.T.C. 44/1984 by one of the landlords and vendees
_give rise to suspicion that only to evict the tenant from the ..
'-.~

land, the landlord set .up to plea tl]at the land was leased out
to another person A. Venkata Rao and the land was agreed
c to be sold to the husbands of vendees and executed
agreements of sale. The collusion can also be seen in filing
of A.T.C. 44 of 1984. All the vendors did not join in A.T.C. 44 r
of 1984. Only R.1 and vendees joined in A.T.C. 44 /1984 for :
evicting the tenant. There is no need for R.1 to join as a party ~
in A.TC. 44 I 1984 to evict the tenant as by then .the title was
-0
cqnveyed to the vendees and R1 had no interest in the lanc:j.
I
Only to protect his right to evict the tenant ln case the sale
deeds are folltnd to be void, he joined in A.T.C. 44/1984. As ·)o...
r '
the amended Act provided an option for th.e tenant to purchase
the land the landlord had to first give notice to the tenant in
E case he wants to sell the lands. To avoid such notice, sale
deed w.ere obtained in the names of the wives in pursuance
of the agreements of the sales. Even though there was an t
agreement of sale prior to amended Act, the agreement of r
~
sale is not enforceable as it contravenes the provisions of
F section 15 of the amended tenancy Act and Section 17 of the
-k
Act reads "The provision of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in
any pre-existing law; custom, usage, agreement or decree or
order of Court." The appellate Court has also negatived.. the
G contentions of the respondents that the appellant has committed
default in payment of rents. So holding, appellate Court allowed J;--
both the A.TA. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1992 and dismissed the cross
objections in both the appeals.
In 1997 after the A.T.~.. s were allowed, the appellant
H
RAMISETTY NARAJAH v. POLURI VENKATA 493
SUBBAMMA & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT]

herein filed O.S. No.619 of 1997 in the Court of Principal A
Junior Civil Judge Ongole, against respondents 1 to 12 In
A.TC. 21 1982 and sought a direction to be given to the
respondents 1 to 12 therein to execute a registered sale deed
in favour of him for the. schedule property.
In 1998, aggrieved by the orders passed in both AT.A. 8
8 and 9 of 1992 only the respondents 1 to 3 filed C.R.P. Nos.
5692 and 5695 of 1998 under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, 1950 in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra
Pradesh.
c
On 20.10.2000, the Court of Prtncipal Junior Civil Judge,
Ongole by its judgment allowed O.S. No.619 of 1997 directing
the defendants therein to execute a sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff (appellant herein) for the schedule lands.
On 22.09.2005, the respondents 1 and 2 filed C.M.P. D
No.6683/2005 in C."R.P. No.5695 of 1998 and sought to
· implead respondents 2 to 12 in A.TC. No.2/1982 who are
legal heirs of original landlords as respondents 5 to 15. in
C.R.P. No.5695 /1998.
On 3.09.2005 the High Court of Judicature of Andhra E
Pradesh by a common judgment allowed both the C.R.Ps, i.e.
5692 and 5695 o( 1998 and dismissed G.M.P. No. 6683 of
2005 filed by the appellant.
According to the appellant the alleged agreement for F
sale was in favour of the husbands of R1 and R2. There was
nothing indicated in the said agreements that there can be
execution in favour of any other person or nominee. The stand
taken was that the property was leased out to somebody else
and not to appellant. It is his case that Section 15 of the Act· G
makes the position absolutely clear that when there is an
intention to sell the land leased to a cultivating· tenant, such
tenant shall be first given notice of the intention to sell such
land and requiring him to exercise his option to purchase the
land. Only in case the cultivating tenant does not ~xercise his H

..
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.

i-
A option, it can be offered to somebody'else. The High Court
has erroneously come to the conclusion that since the alleged
agreement for sale was executed prior to introduction of the
provision, the provision has no applicability. 1-
According to learned counsel there was no discussion
B even of the ingredients of the provision and in any event of
~
sub section (6) of Section 15 and Section 17 of the Act. It is ....
pointed out that R-3 had filed an application to the effect that
he does not want to press the petition before the High Court.
On that basis, his name was deleted from the array of parties
c and he was added as respondent No.4. The question of default t1
therefore becomes redundant as the District Court has
dismissed the eviction petition which was filed on the ground
of default. The effect of the prayer made by the respondent
No. 3, who was a petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, was
D also not considered by the High Court.
4. It is the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that
the object of Section 15 is to protect the interest of the .,..
cultivating tenant. Therefore, in case the landlord intends to
sell the land, he has to first give option to the cultivating tenant.
E Even if there was an agreement earlier to the introduction of
the provision, that is really of no consequence as otherwise
the provisions of Section 17 would become redundant. It is,
therefore, submitted that though the provision according to
the High Court came into force with effect from 1. 7.1980 and
F the agreements were purportedly entered into on 10.9.1979,
the sale deed was executed on 17.1.1981. The High Court, it ·~
is submitted, has not also considered the question whether
the sale deeds could have been executed in favour of the
respondents 1 & 2 when admittedly the purported agreement
G for sale was entered into with their respective husbands.
.(._~
5. In reply learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that High Court's judgment is in order because what is stated
in Section 11 of the Act. According to him, even if there is a
change in ownership of the land the cultivating tenant co'1tinues
H
RAMISETTY NARAIAH v. POLURI VENKATA 495
SUBBAMMA & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT]
-t
the tenancy on the same terms as before. It is pointed out that' A
Section 15 shall came into operation only when there is an
intention to sell the land. That intention in the present case
was already expressed and agreement for sale was executed
prior to introduction of the provi$ion in question.
6. We find that the trial court has not considered the B
f
effect of the sub-section (6) of Section 15 and Section 17.
The relevant provisions read as follows:
"Section 15. Cultivating tenants' right to-first purchase the
land leased to him: (1) Any landlord intending to sell the c
land leased to a cultivating tenant shall first give notice to
such cultivating tenant; of his intention to sell such land,
and requiring him to exercise his option to purchase the
land. The particulars to be specified in the notice and the
time within which the option shall be exercised by
D
cultivating tenant shall be such as may be prescribed.
(2) to (5)
~·

(6) Any sale of the land by the landlord in cultivation of this
Section shall be voidable to the option of the cultivating
tenant." E

"17. Act to override contract and other laws:- The provisions
of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any pre-existing law
custom, usage, agreement or decree or order of a Court." F
7. Section 17 has overriding effect. As a bare reading of
the provision makes it clear, it inter-alia provides that
notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any pre
existing law, custom, usage, agreement or decree or order of
the court, the provisions of the Act shall have effect. Similarly, G
--._+ sub-section (6) of Section 15 provides that any sale of th_e
land by the landlord in contravention of Section 15 shall be
voidable to the option of the cultivating tenant. The High Court
has come to an abrupt conclusion that since the agreement to
sell was purportedly executed prior to the introduction of the H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R

i-
A provision, they have no relevance. There is no aiscussion as
to- the effect of the· provisions, and the specific reference to
agreements. Additionally, the High Court has not dealt with
the aspect as to whether it could have gone into the question
of default when respondent No. 3 who was shown as the
B petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition did not want to pursu~
the petition. -t
.,
8. In the aforesaid background we deem tt proper to
remit the matter to the High Court to hear and dispose of the
Civil Revision Petitions afresh and deal with the aspects
c highlighted above. We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits. Since the matter is
.pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of
the petitions as early as practicable preferably by the end of
February, 2009.
D
9. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
N.J. Appeals disposed of.
}-

..·