The Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine the genuineness of an agreement of sale, even if the Land Reforms Tribunal did not doubt its genuineness, and the land covered by an agreement of sale is to be included in the holdings of both the transferor and transferee under section 3(i)(v) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act, 1973.

( 1 ) IN this revision petition, filed under section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, two contentions are raised by Sri S. V. Sundara rajan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner: (1) that the Land Reforms Tribunal should have held that the lands in survey Nos. 320/1, 320/2 and 308/4, which were sold under unregistered agreements of sale, dated 12th September, 1970 to one Sri P. Chalapathi should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner ; and (2) that the land of an extent of Acres 1. 14 cents in Survey No. 323/3 which was alleged to have been orally gifted on 19th July, 1976 to one Sri gorantla Subramanya Sastry at the time of performing the obsequies of the petitioner s grandfather should also be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE Land Reforms Tribunal held on point No. 1, that the sale not having been effected by a registered deed no title passes to the transferee, and that under section 3 (i) of the Act the land covered by the agreement of sale has to be included in the holding of both the petitioner and the transferee. With regard to second point the Land Reforms tribunal held that the gift was not reduced to writing-and such a gift of an immovable property without registered deed was not valid. On both the grounds the Land Reforms Tribunal held that the aforesaid lands covered by agreement of sale and the oral gift should be included in the holding of the petitioner.

( 3 ) ON appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal held that the agreement of sale was not genuine, that even otherwise under the provisions of section 3 (i) (v) read with the Explanation of the Act the land covered by the agreement of sale is liable to be included in the holdings of both the petitioner and the transferee. With regard to the gift the Appellate tribunal concurred with the view taken by the Land Reforms Tribunal.

( 4 ) IN this revision petition Sri S. V. Sundara Rajan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Appellate tribunal should not have gone into the question of genuineness of the agreement of sale when the Land Reforms Tribunal did not doubt its genuineness, but I do not think this submission can be accepted. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal is the final appellate forum for deciding questions of fact and therefore, it is the bounden duty of the Appellate tribunal to decide the questions of fact. The Land Reforms Tribunal erred in not first determining whether the agreement of sale is genuine or not. This defect has been rectified by the Appellate tribunal by going into and determining the said question. I do not think that any error has been committed by the appellate Tribunal in going into the question of genuineness of the agreement of sale though that was not adverted to by the Land Reforms Tribunal.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel then submitted that the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the agreement of sale is not genuine. But the Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the said agreement of sale is not genuine. The agreement of sale is dated 12th September, 1970 and the land of an extent of Acre 10. 00 was agreed to be conveyed for a consideration of Rs. 26,000. The document recites that at the time of execution of the agreement a sum of Rs. 16,000 was given as advance and the balance of Rs. 10,000 was to be paid by the vendee at any time at his will and pleasure and obtain a registered sale deed. There is also no provision for payment of interest on the amount due towards the balance of consideration. An endorsement of payment of Rs. 2,000 was made on the document on 15th January, 1973 with further recital that the vendee should pay the balance of sale consideration within three years from that date. The Appellate tribunal found that these recitals are unnatural and improbable, and the recital that the balance of sale consideration should be paid within thr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document