( 1 ) ). The second defendant is the appellant. At an action laid at the behest of the first respondent-plaintiff, the trial Court granted a preliminary decree in his favour for half of the plaint schedule property subject to refund half of the sale consideration passed under ex. B-1 dt. September 30, 1955 Assailing the first part of the decree, the appellant filed this appeal.

( 2 ) THE fac s now proved and accepted by the Court below are that the first respondent is the adopted son of the first defendant- The property belongs to the joint family. Initially the first defendant denied the adoption in a - suit, 0 S No, 105/65. In that suit the plaint schedule property was also one of the items but the appellant-alienee was not impleaded. The trial Court decreed the suit 0 S No. 105/65 under Ex. A-3 dt, December 23, 1967. On appeal in a S No. 19/68, the appellate Court by judgment dated May 16, 1969. under ex A-2 confirmed if. but left open to file a separate suit for partition of the plaint schedule property impleading the appellant-alienee. Thus the suit came to be filed, the defence taken by the appellant is that he is a bonafied purchaser for a valuable consideration. Therefore respondent No 1 being the adopted son is bound by the sale. The consideration under the sale was utilised to celebrate the marriage of the daughter of the first defendant i. e, the sister of the first respondent and the doctrine of pious obligation was applied, the first respondent is bound by the sale under Ex,b-1. The trial Court accepted the case of the appellant to that extent. But it set aside the sale on the ground that neither permission under Sec. 47 nor validation under Section 50-B of the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act (21 of 1950), for short, "the Act" was obtained from the competent authority, as a result the sale is void. As against this part of the decree, the appeal has been filed.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vasudeva Rao, contended that the appellant having purchased the property, though found to be invalid by operation of Section 47 of the Act, he is entitled to defend his possession by the doctrine of sec. 63-A of the Transfer of property Act, 1882 (for short, the T P act) and therefore, the decree for possession cannot be granted against him. It is undoubtedly true that the transferee is entitled by the doctrine of part performance to defend his possession under Sec. 53-A of the T P Act so long as he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he has done his part of the contract in furtherance of the contract of sale. Section 47 of the act prchibits -permanent alienation. Alienation includes sale. Any alienation made without obtaining (he prior sanction of the Tahsildar is void. Therefore, Sec. 50-B gives the right to the alienee to obtain validation was not availed of. As a result, the sale become void. . The question then is, whether the doctrine of part performance under an agreement of sale can be relied on after the sale is declared as void. If it was the case where the agreement of sale was subsisting and as long as the transferor has not denied the execution of the agreement of sale and the transferor is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract of sale, till the contract gets fructified into full title since he was given possession under the contract, he is entitled to retain possession as a shield against the transferor or the persons claiming title under him. But. once the agreement stood merged with the execution of the sale deed and the sale deed is now dec ared to be void, the contract of sale does not get revived and it does not have any independent existence. The right to have the part performance also no longer subsists and the possession thereafter becomes illegal In Syed Jalal Vs. Taragopal (1) air 1970 A P. 19 a Division Bench of this Court has held that once the contract is found to be void, possession obtaine