SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA - APPELLANT
VERSUS
DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6482 & 6483 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO(S). 28696-28697 OF 2015)
DECIDED ON : 27-10-2021.
Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act - Sections 16 (1), 15 , 14 , 14 (2) , 10, 11 and 12 - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 15, 14 , 20 and 36 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Sections 164 and 364 - Sale deed documents - declaratory relief that the price of the schedule land - Tenancy - Alleged further that during pendency of the suits compromise took place between all the parties two parties got their share of 10.76 acres (which comprises remaining extents of lands situated in other survey numbers fell to the share another brother - It was agreed petitioner would continue to cultivate the said land acres as a tenant and pay Devi. - Appellant (hereafter called approached Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Tribunal claiming various reliefs under Section 16 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act i.e. for declaratory relief that price of schedule land acre is reasonable and stood accepted by first respondent by receiving first instalment demand draft; that he was entitled to pay the balance sale price a declaration that two registered sale deed documents registered sale deed document - Executed in favour of second and third respondents are void and for injunction against respondents to prevent them from interfering with his possession and tenancy of petition schedule lands – Held, amount was appropriated towards maktha or rent for a part of the previous period - Tribunal held that explanation for appropriation was untenable, because no notice express provisions of the Tenancy Act) had been issued; more importantly, in terms of the appellant’s pleadings, rent - arrears, at best would have been case of Section 14, the law recognizes that a tenant can face eviction, if she or he fails to deposit rent - There was no specific pleading as to the period for which rents were defaulted by appellant. On the other hand, the notice was produced - similar notice setting out with particulars of the rent payable as well as period, the District Judge and the High Court could not have upset order of tribunal as regards the appellant’s exercise of right to purchase property, under Section 15 - Court records its appreciation for the assistance given by Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, the amicus appointed in this case - Appeals are allowed.
ORDER :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Special leave granted. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard finally. The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Andhra and Telangana1[Dated 12.06.2015 in CRP No. 816/2015 and CRP No. 3591/2015] dismissing his revision petitions.
2. The appellant (hereafter called “Musunuri Satyanarayana”) had approached Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Tribunal (hereafter “the tribunal”) claiming various reliefs under Section 16 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act (hereafter “the Tenancy Act”) i.e. for declaratory relief that the price of the schedule land i.e., Rs. 1,25,000/per acre is reasonable and stood accepted by the first respondent (hereafter “Indira Devi”) by receiving the first instalment of Rs. 49,125/- by demand draft; that he was entitled to pay the balance sale price of Rs. 4,42,125/- to Indira Devi in nine instalments; for a declaration that two registered sale deed documents2[Nos. 139/06 dated 03-02-06 and the registered sale deed document No. 140/06, dated 03-02-06] (hereafter “the impugned sale deeds”) executed by Indira Devi in favour of the second and third respondents (collectively called here as “contesting respondents” or “purchasers”) are void and for injunction against the respondents to prevent them from interfering with his possession and tenancy of the petition schedule lands. The tribunal granted the reliefs; the appellate authority (District Judge) upset that order and the High Court affirmed the District Judge’s order, dismissing the appellant’s revision petitions.
3. Indira Devi’s husband -late Dr. T. Veeraiah- had three brothers Dr. T. Suryanarayana, Dr. T. Seshagiri Rao and T. Satyanarayana a retired Engineer (R&B). T. Suryanarayana and T. Seshagiri Rao were settled in the United States of America. T. Satyanarayana also used to be in the USA for some time; he returned to Hyderabad to his daughter's house. After the death of their father Narasaiah, the said four brothers got landed properties. Dr. T. Suryanarayana appointed Indira Devi as his general power of attorney. Her husband, T. Veeraiah died intestate on 04-02-2002. In terms of his will, his share of the properties devolved on Indira Devi. These properties were situated at Mulukuduru and other places. After her husband died, Indira Devi became the absolute owner of all the properties, and she was a land lady within the meaning of the provisions of Tenancy Act. Indira Devi, for herself and on behalf of Dr. T. Suryanarayana (as his general power of attorney) filed A.T.C.No.5/02 on the file of Special Officer, Ponnur against the appellant, one Pamidi Koteswara Rao, Vezendla Rama Krishna, Chakravarapu Papa Raju, her brother, her brother-in-law T. Satyanarayana and Marupudi Gnana Prasada Rao Under Section 16(1) of the Tenancy Act to declare that the lease between the appellant and the other respondents relating to the appellant’s 2/4th share in agreed maktha3[Agreed rent, either in cash or in kind, in the form of a measure of agricultural produce.] due for the years 2002-2003 and in future either to T. Satyanarayana or to Marupudi Gnana Prasada Rao.
4. The appellant alleged that he was cultivating 13.65 acres and the respondents 2 and 4 (in the petition) were cultivating 4.17 acres, 1.37 acres and 1.00. acre respectively. The appellant filed a suit4[O.S.No. 174/02], for grant of permanent injunction against Ari Venkateswara Rao and 6 others who at the instance of T. Satyanarayana were interfering with his tenancy rights in the said land of 13.63 acres which includes the above schedule land of 3.93 acres. The appellant also filed A.T.C. No. 3/02 against Indira Devi, her brother-in-law Dr. T. Suryanarayana represented by his G.P.A. (Indira Devi) T. Satyanarayana and T. Seshagiri Rao for declaration that he was the cultivating tenant of those 13.65 acres and that the tenancy was subsisting. Interim injunction restraining the respondents from inte
The tenant's delay and admissions preclude claims under the Tenancy Act, emphasizing the validity of prior transactions and the necessity of prompt challenges.
The court affirmed that the protected tenant's rights under the Tenancy Act cannot be overridden by private agreements or settlements that do not comply with statutory requirements.
A landlord cannot obtain possession of surrendered land without an order from the Tahsildar, despite a verified surrender; tenant's rights are upheld until such an order is made.
Established rights to land tenure under Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act are protected against late claims, affirming the finality of earlier judgments.
Tenancy rights and abandonment principles are critical in establishing a plaintiff's standing in tenancy recovery suits under specific provisions of the Assam Tenancy Act.
Continuance of unrecorded tenancy established due to failure of original tenants to validate their surrender of tenancy, reinforcing tenancy rights under the applicable laws.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.