An agreement of sale in respect of an agricultural land is invalid and unenforceable if it contravenes the provisions of section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, which prohibits the transfer of land purchased by a tenant under section 38-E without the previous sanction of the Collector.

JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---Question of law involved in this second appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to protect their possession under the provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in respect of a land of which the plaintiff has become owner by operation of law under the provisions of section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Hyderabad Tenancy Act"). The said question arises out of the following facts.

2. Respondent Shrirang Mahataraji Dhurwade filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 5 of 1971 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Beed, for restoration of possession of agricultural land Survey No. 24 admeasuring 6 acres 36 gunthas situated at village Sandarwan, Taluka and District Beed. Originally, one Baburao Ganpatrao Land was the owner of the said land. The plaintiff, that is, the respondent in this appeal, was a protected tenant of the said land and under the provisions of section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, he was declared owner and the price of the land was also fixed. The plaintiff deposited the entire sale price and obtained a certificate of ownership as provided by sub-section 2 of section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. In pursuance of the said declaration of ownership, the plaintiff obtained the possession of the land on June 21, 1963. It appears that the plaintiffs earlier had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 100 of 1970 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Beed, for permanent injunction. The plaintiff was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, and hence he withdrew the said suit. It is, thereafter, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for possession as the defendants possession was unlawful.

3. The appellant-defendant resisted the said suit. He admitted the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. However, it is contended by the defendant by way of written statement, which is at Exh. No. 25, that the plaintiff had executed an agreement of sale on July 15, 1964, in favour of the defendant for consideration of Rs. 1,000/- and earnest amount of Rs. 975/- was paid and the balance of the amount was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. The said agreement of sale is produced by the defendant in the suit at Exh. No. 53. It is further contended by the defendant that the defendant was put in possession in pursuance of the said agreement of sale and, therefore, he is entitled to protect his possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and it is, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that the plaintiff was not dispossessed as placed by him and secondly it is held that the defendant was entitled to protect his possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. That judgment and decree was challenged in appeal before the learned District Judge, Beed. The said appeal bearing No. 13 of 1974 was heard and by his judgment and decree dated June 14, 1976, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the defendants was ordered to deliver possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree of the learned District Judge is challenged in this appeal.

5. Shri S.C. Bora, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal, contended that the provisions of section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act shall not be applicable to a case where the defendant is put in possession of the land under an agreement of sale. It is further urged that the agreement of sale does not become illegal. What is held to be illegal by sub-clause (2) of section 50-B is any transfer or a partition of land in contravention of sub-section (1) of section 50-B. The word transfer used in sub-section (2) of section 50-B has a restricted meaning and it cannot be extended

Click Here to Read the rest of this document