The transfer of title in goods is governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, and the intention of the parties is a key factor in determining when the title passes. A charge on property can be created either by the operation of a statute (statutory charge) or by the voluntary act of the parties. The creation of a statutory charge requires clear language in the statute, while the creation of a voluntary charge requires a clear intention to create a charge, which must be expressly manifest and clear.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus for declaring the impugned order dtd. 23/11/2021 bearing R.C.No.985/2021/D3 confirming the distraint order and notice bearing R.C.No.141/2021/A dtd. 11/6/2021 as illegal and arbitrary etc.

The petitioner before this Court claims to be the owner of sugar which was purchased by them from respondent No.5. The contention of the State namely respondents 1 to 3 is that respondent No.5 defaulted in the payment of the price of the sugarcane to the farmers and therefore, they invoked the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short 'the Act') to recover the sum due by attaching the sugar/property. The order of distraint and the subsequent order confirming the same which are mentioned above are the subject matter of the challenge.

2. This Court has heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, Special Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 in the Office of the Advocate General, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned senior counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri J.Ugra Narasimha for the implead respondent Nos. 7 to 16. I.A.No.2 of 2021 filed by the implead petitioners to implead the respondents Nos.7 to 16 to the writ petition is allowed by this order. Sri J.Ugra Narasimha was permitted to argue the matter on behalf of the respondents/farmers for whose dues the sugar was attached.

3. The essence of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy for the petitioner is that petitioner is the owner of the sugar, which has been distrained/ attached under the provisions of the Act for the dues of the 5th respondent. Learned senior counsel therefore argues that as the petitioner is the owner of the sugar, the respondents have committed a mistake in invoking the provisions of the Act for recovery of the sugarcane dues which are payable to the farmers. Learned Senior Counsel emphasizes that unless the title in the property/sugar remains with the 5th respondent, the proceedings cannot be taken against the same. Learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to the terms and conditions of the agreement dtd. 6/11/2020, in particular to clauses 2, 7, 16, 20 and 23 to argue that the title in the sugar has passed to the petitioner from respondent No.5. He points out that under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and in particular Sec. in 19 and 20, the petitioner has become the owner of the sugar. He also submits that they have given a Stock Management Agreement on 7/11/2020 to a company called 'DACPL 'which is the physical control of the sugar.

4. Learned counsel also points out that the payment of the price is borne out by the record that they have filed before this Court. He also draws the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, wherein it is clearly admitted that a sum of Rs.29,24,32,787.00 was received from the petitioner-company in the period 16/12/2020 to 25/2/2021 towards sale consideration. The respondent No.5 also agrees that out of this a sum of Rs.21.99 crores has been paid to the farmers. Therefore, Learned Senior Counsel submits that as there is a transfer of title, the invocation of the provisions of the Act against the sugar which belongs to the petitioner-company and not to the defaulter is clearly illegal. He relies upon the case law (which would be considered later in the course of judgment) to buttress his argument. He also submits that a learned single Judge of this Court by its order dtd. 19/11/2021 while disposing W.P.No.21644 of 2021 has permitted the petitioner to submit a detailed representation and directed the official respondents to take a decision on the matter. Learned senior counsel points out that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation and categorically asserted that title in the sugar has passed to the peti