Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1961 prohibits permanent alienations or other transfers of agricultural land without the previous sanction of the Tahsildar, but it does not prohibit entering into contracts of sale as such.

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE five second appeals, the first appeal and the Civil revision petition have been referred to a Bench by our learned brothers Venkatesam, J. , Krishna Rao, J. , and Obul Reddy, J. , by their respective orders for resolving the conflict between the two decisions of Gopal Rao Ekbote J. , in Ramulu v. Narashimhulu, (1963) 1 Andh WR 165 and Raghvachari v. Ramkrishan Reddy (1965) 2 Andh WR 61, on the one hand and two decisions of N. D. Krishna Rao J. , (as he then was) in Ramulu v. Anantharamulu, 1964 (2) Andh WR 161= (AIR 1966 Andh Pra 70) and C. B. Taraporwals v. Kazim Ali Pasha, 1966 (2) Andh WR 121= (AIR 1966 Andh Pra 361), one of Munikanniah J. in Vasudev Reddy v. Venkata Reddy, 1962 (2) Andh WR 462 = (AIR 1963 Andh Pra 232) and one of Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. , in Venkata Rao v. Ch. Sattaiah, 1964 (2) Andh WR (SN) 43 on the other, involving the determination of the scope and ambit of S. 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 921 of 1961) hereinafter called "the Tenancy Act ). These several appeals and revision petition challenge the validity of (a) agreement of sale entered into between vendor and vendee to sell agricultural lands, the terms of which are that the vendor would take necessary steps to obtain permission under Section 47 of the Tenancy Act and execute a regular sale deed, but without putting the vendee kin possession; (b) agreement of sale followed by possession with a clause that permission would be obtained; and (c) agreements of sale, whether simplicities or followed by possession without the clause that permission will be obtained under Section 47.

( 2 ) IN all these three categories of cases, the question are (1) whether a suit for specific performance is maintainable compelling the vendor to apply for permission; (2) whether in a suit for ejectment on the ground that the vendee is in possession of agricultural land without the permission of the Tahsildar, the vendee can plead part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to defend his possession; and (3) whether a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff-vendees possession lies.

( 3 ) IN S. A. No. 340/63 the 1st defendant who was the owner and pattedar of the suit lands put the plaintiff in possession of his lands by virtue of an agreement of sale dated 25-12-1959, agreeing to sell them for a consideration of Rs. 5500. Prior to the agreement it is alleged the plaintiff paid Rs. 500. 00 to the 1st defendant in 1957 and on the date of the agreement of sale he paid Rs. 2500. 00 to him. In addition to this the plaintiff cleared off the debts due by the 1st defendant to Masetty Venkatesam and Burhanuddin of Dhobipet. the plaintiff further alleged that the 4th and 5th defendants, in spite of their knowing that the 1st defendant had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff and had put him in possession, jointed hands with defendants 2 and 3 persuaded the 1st defendant to sell the lands to the 4th defendant. Thereafter defendants 1 to 4 made an application to the concerned Tahasildar for permission to alienate the suit lands. Defendants 2 to 5 are interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the suit lands and are intending to dispossess him by unlawful means. he accordingly filed the suit for a permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 5 to restrain them from interfering with his possession.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 were ex parte. The 1st defendant denied that he ever entered into an agreement in favour of the plaintiff or put him in possession, of obtained any money from him. He further contended that the plaintiff is his agricultural servant and that he was never in possession of the suit land. In any case the suit is not maintainable against him who is admittedly the owner of the suit lands. he contended that the alleged transaction between him and the plaintiff being contrary to Section 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act