Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SRIRAMULU
Katta Rattamma - Appellant
Versus
Gannamaneni Kotaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 11-25-74
LAND REFORM - Depressed Class Grant - Alienation - Validity - Board's Standing Order - Public Policy - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 23.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs purchased land from defendant No. 3, who had earlier sold the same land to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 claimed that the sale to him was valid and that he had been in possession of the land since the date of purchase. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title to the land and for permanent injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the sale to defendant No. 2 was valid and that the plaintiffs had not established their title to the land. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale to defendant No. 2 was valid and inoperative, and whether it violated the conditions laid down for a Depressed Class Grant? 2. Whether the plaintiffs had to prove their title and possession in the circumstances of the suit for obtaining the relief asked for? 3. Whether the plaintiffs had got title to and possession of the suit lands? 4. Whether the defendant No. 2 had title to and possession of the suit land by virtue of the sale or by virtue of any adverse possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Board's Standing Order (B.S.O.) No. 38, which restricted the alienation of land granted to members of depressed classes, did not have the force of law and its contravention did not amount to a violation of law. 2. The sale to defendant No. 2 was not void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as it was not opposed to public policy. 3. The plaintiffs had failed to establish their title to and possession of the suit land.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' second appeal, holding that the sale to defendant No. 2 was valid and that the plaintiffs had not established their title to the land.
( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS suit O. S. No. 232 of 1963- for declaration of their title to the suit lands and for permanent injunction, was dismissed by the District Munsif Narasaraopet and appeal A. S. No. 154 of 1970, against the judgment and decree of the trial court, was also dismissed by the first appellate Court. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.
( 2 ) THE material facts are:-Plaintiffs purchased Ac. 8. 05 cents out of Ac. 9-53 cents of land, comprised in Demarcation nos. 546/1 and 553, situated at Poonur village for Rs, I000/-from defendant No. 3, meka Rosaiah, under a registered sale- deed dated 27-8-1962 (Ex. A. I ). Ever since the date of purchase, plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. Defendant No. I is a rich and powerful man. He has been trying to interefere with the plaintiff s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands. Four days before the institution of the suit, when the plaintiffs were act- ully ploughing the lands by engaging their caste men, the defendants obstructed the plaintiffs and threatened them and their men. With those averments, the plaintiffs filed the above suit.
( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 filed a written statement, which v;as adopted by defendant No. I. The 2nd defendant contended that the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs is a sham and nominal document brought about by defendant No. 3 who is closely related to the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant purchased Ac. 3. 30 cents of land, in Demarcation No. 546/1 and Ac. 4,20 cents in D. No 552/1 from Meka Rosaiah, defendant No. 3, under an agreement of sale dated 10-5-1950 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- and took delivery of the same on the date of the agreement. Since the 2nd defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands, in his ow_p right and teethe knowledge of one and all, defendant No. 3 executed a registered sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 12-12-1952 (Ex. B2 ). Out of the said Ac. 3,30 cents in D. No, 546/1, the 2nd defendant sold 0. 25 cents of land to one Chukkapalli seshamma, under a registered sale-deed, dated 14-10-1956 (Ex. B. 6) Chukkapalh seshamma la a necessary party and the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party. The remaining portion of the land was in his personal cultivation or under the cultivation of a tenant to whom he had given on lease. Defendant no. 2 has been in continuous possession of the said land and has perfected his title by adverse possession. Since the suit land is the subject-matter of the grant by the Government, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legal effects of the sale-deed dated 16-5-1950 in favour of defendant No. 2, because the grantor Government alone is entitled, if at all, to resume it.
( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 3 filed a separate written statement. The said land was granted in favour of persons belonging to depressed classes. The main condition of the grant was that alienation of the same in favour of persons belonging to non-depressed classes would be void. The sale by him to the plaintiffs is true and supported by consideration. Defendant No. 3 did not execute any agreement of sale in favour of defendant No. 2. He did not receive the consideration of rs. 5,000/- from defendant No. 2. it is true that the 3rd defendant executed a sale-deed dated 12-12-1952 in favour of defendant No. 2 bui consideration was not paid, on the understanding that defendant No. 2 would pay the same after enquiry into the validity of the sale. The 2nd defendant thereafter, did not pay any consideration under the sale-deed and he was not even put in possession of those lands. The sale-deed remained a dead letter and it was not acted upon. It is the 3rd defendant that has been paying the land-revenue till he sold the lands to the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 3 being meek and submlssible and the 2nd defendant being a very rich and powerful person, he could not take back the document of sale from defendant No. 2. Defen
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
