A sale deed executed without permission from the Tahsildar under Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 is illegal and cannot confer title on the purchaser.

( 1 ) THE defendant is the appellant, the plaintiff filed the suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff s possession cf the land bearing S. No. 203/2 measuring about acres 23. 38 Gts. siiuated in Kalvakunta village. The plaintiff has admitted that the patta of the suit land stood in the name of one Mohammed Bilal but that it was so only nominally. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land for a long time. He relied upon the relevant Pabani Patraks and the land revenue receipts for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965 in support of his claim the defendant in his written statement contended that Mohammed bilal was the absolute owner and pattedar of the suit land and that it was in the possession of Bilal till it was attached and custody thereof was taken by the Government on 15-4-1963. The defendant claimed to have purchased the suit property under Ex. B-16 which is a registered sale deed dated 3-8-1965 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000. The defendant also claimed that he was in possession of the suit land which was on the data of the sale as vacant land. It was urged that as the plaintiff had no manner of right or title or interest in the suit land no injunction would be granted.

( 2 ) IT was found by the trial court that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit land on the date of suit and that the Government did not deliver possession of the suit land to Mohammed Bilal after attachment had and did not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land after the institution of the suit. On the question whether the defendant is the owner of the suit land, the trial court found that the sale in favour of the defendant was hit by Sec. 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. In that view notwithstanding Ex B. 16 sale deed it was held that the defendant was not the lawful owner of the suit property. The suit was therefore decreed by the trial court. On appeal by the defendant the lower Appellate court framed three points for decision. " (1) Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land at the time of the filing of the suit ? (2) Whether the suit for mere injuction is maintainable without seeking relief for declaration of title ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the Injunction as prayed for? the Lower Appellate Court agreeing with the finding of the trial court found on point (1) that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit land on the date of the filing of the suit On point (2) it was found that the plaintiff need not have asked for a declaration of his title and the suit for perpetual injunction was maintainable. On point (3) it was found that the defendant had unlawfully interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as alleged in the plaint. In the course of the discussion under point (1) it was found that the sale deed Ex. B 16 executed by Mohammed Bilal in favour of the defendant on 3- 8-1965 without obtaining the necessary permission from the Tahsildar u/s 47 of the Tenancy Act was illegal and could not confer title on the defendant. The appellate Court had therefore dismissed the appeal. In this second appeal by the defendant it is contended by the learned counsel, Sri Upendialai Waghray, that tha possession of the plaintiff in the instant case is not one such as can be protected by the grant of a perpetual injunction. The learaed Counsel sought to contend that the sale deed evidenced by Ex. B. 16 could not be held to be a void transaction. The Counsel submitted that the transaction was one which can be rendered valid by recourse to proceedings u/s 50 B and in fact as on today Section 47 itself stands deleted and that there is even no need to make any application u/s 50 B of the Act. No doubt, it was stated in the defendant s evidence that Sec. 50 B proceedings were pending and that they were oaly stayed by reason of the present suit. But except for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document