1. Dispute over possession of agricultural land under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, involving cultivators inducted by a person lacking title. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., V. BHARGAVA AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Rentala Lachaiah and others, Appellants
Versus
Chimmapudi Subrahmanyam, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 611 of 1964,
D/-19-4-1967.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, for Appellants. M/s. P. Ram Reddy and Triyambak Rao Deshmukh, Senior Advocates, (Mr. R. Vasudev Pillai. Advocate, with them), for Respondent.
Advocates:
A.V.RANGAM, P.RAM REDDY, R.V.PILLAI, Triyambak Rao Deshmukh
A.V.RANGAM, P.RAM REDDY, R.V.PILLAI, Triyambak Rao Deshmukh
A person inducted on land by a trespasser cannot be considered as "lawfully cultivating" the land under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, as a trespasser lacks the legal authority to create tenancy rights.
Headnote:(A) Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 2(v), 5, and 32(1) - Hyderabad Land Revenue Act - Section 2(13) - Deemed tenant - Lawfully cultivating land - A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the land-holder and the person is not a family member, servant, or mortgagee in possession (Para 3) - The term "lawfully" must be interpreted to mean that the person who inducted the cultivator must have the legal right to do so - A person who is a trespasser cannot create any right in the land in favor of another (Para 4).
(B) Comparison with other Tenancy Acts - The protection afforded to tenants where they are inducted by a mortgagee in possession is based on the mortgagee's right to manage the property, which is distinct from induction by a trespasser (Paras 5-6).
(C) Distinction from other Tenancy Laws - Where a statutory scheme protects cultivators regardless of the inductor's title, such a provision is distinct from the requirement of "lawful cultivation" under the present Act; a tenant inducted by a trespasser cannot maintain a right against the true owner (Paras 7-10).
Facts of the case:
An adopted son obtained a decree for declaration of title and possession of lands against the widow of the deceased. After the decree, the widow leased the lands to third parties. The adopted son subsequently recovered possession through the court. The third parties then applied for possession under the Tenancy Act, claiming they were "deemed tenants" as they had been cultivating the land for several years.
Findings of Court:
The third parties were not tenants of the original owner. They were inducted by the widow after she had lost her legal right to the land and was effectively a trespasser. Consequently, they were not "lawfully cultivating" the land.
Issues: Whether persons inducted on land by a person who had no title to the land (a trespasser) can be considered as "lawfully cultivating" the land and thus be deemed tenants under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a person to be a "deemed tenant" under Section 5, the cultivation must be "lawful." This requires that the person who put the cultivator in possession must have had the legal authority or title to do so. A trespasser cannot create any legal right or tenancy in favor of another.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether cultivators inducted by a trespasser are deemed tenants under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. (Para 4 )
3. Induction by a trespasser does not constitute lawful cultivation; tenancy requires a lease, and the law cannot protect those inducted by persons without title. (Para 4 , 6 , 10 )
4. A person inducted on land by a trespasser is not lawfully cultivating the land and cannot be a deemed tenant under the Act. (Para 4 , 6 , 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 11 )
6. What constitutes lawful cultivation under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950?
Lawful cultivation requires that the person be inducted by someone with the legal right to create a tenancy. Induction by a trespasser, who has no title to the land, does not qualify as lawful cultivation and cannot create tenancy rights. (Para 4 , 6 , 10 )
7. How is the term asami shikmi interpreted in the context of tenancy rights?
An asami shikmi is defined as a lessee holding land either under a written instrument or an oral agreement, excluding those holding directly under the Government. (Para 4 )
8. How does the court distinguish between tenants inducted by a mortgagee versus those inducted by a trespasser?
Tenants inducted by a mortgagee in possession are protected because the mortgagee manages the property under authority derived from the mortgagor. A trespasser has no such authority, and those they induct gain no legal protection against the true owner. (Para 6 )
Judgment
MITTER, J. : This is an appeal by special leave, from a judgment in a batch of civil revision petitions decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in September, 1962.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows. One Ramalingayya died in the year 1941 possessed of considerable properties including the lands which formed the subject matter of the above mentioned civil revision petitions. Before his death he had adopted the petitioner before the High Court one Chimmapudi Subrahmanyam, the respondent before this Court. He came into possession of the properties of his adoptive father after the latter s death. Ramalingayya s widow, however raised a dispute about the factum and validity of the adoption and claimed the properties as the heir of her husband. Subramanyam filed a suit in the court of the District Munsif, Khammam for a declaration that he was the adopted son of Ramalingayya. Pending the disposal of the suit, however Ramalingayya s widow, who was the 4th respondent in C. R. P. No. 36 of 1952 before the High Court claimed to have her name registered in the register maintained under the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act of 1317 F. by virtue of the provisions of S. 59 of that Act. The land revenue authorities registered the widow Kaveramma as pattedar and dispossessed the adopted son of all the lands petting Kaveramma in possession thereof . The adopted son, amended his plaint by including a prayer for possession. During the pendency of the suit, the widow Kaveramma was prohibited by an order of injunction from dealing with the lands in any way. This was sometime in the year 1944. The suit of the adopted son was decreed by the trial court on March 24, 1951 both with regard to the declaration of the right of adoption and succession as also possession over the lands mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. Thereafter, sometime in the year 1952 (the exact date does not appear from the records before us) Kaveramma leased the lands which were the subject matter of the civil revision petitions to the appellants before this Court. This is borne out by the judgment of the District Collector, Khammam dated March 19, 1959 and the petition for special leave to this Court dated October 18, 1962. Kaveramma preferred an appeal from the decree passed against her and this was dismissed by the High Court in 1954. The adopted son put the decree in execution and got delivery of possession through the court in August 1954. It appears that very soon thereafter in September 1954 the appellants surrendered possession of the lands to him and executed a deed in respect thereof. Notwithstanding that, about a year afterwards, they filed a petition on October 7, 1955 for possession of the lands alleging that they had been in possession for "the last six years in the capacity of tenants". Their allegation further was that the adopted son and his mother had dispossessed them from the suit lands and they therefore prayed for being put hack into possession. This claim was preferred under S. 32 (1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. The Tahsildar made an order in favour of the appellants in July 1958 which was upheld in appeal to the Collector in March, 1959. This led to the revision applications before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions and this has led to the appeal.
3. Under S. 32 (1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, l950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) "a tenant or an agricultural labourer or artisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house under any of the provisions of this Act may apply to the Tahsildar in writing in the prescribed form for such possession." "Tenant" has been defined in S. 2 (v) of the Act as meaning an asami shikmi who holds lands on lease and includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under the provisions of the Act. The relevant portion of S. 5 of the Act provides as follows :-
"A person lawfully cu
