Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. As indicated hereinabove, the suit was initially dismissed, but was decreed by the 1st appellate Court on the finding that all the various transactions were hit by Sections 47 and 50B of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1950 Act"). It was held that the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the lands in question through the defendants who had not acquired any right to the lands and their possession therein was merely permissive possession.

7. The High Court allowed the Second Appeal upon holding that the possession of the beneficiaries of the various transactions involving the land was adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs and the said transfers were not effected by the provisions of Sections 47 and 50B of the 1950 Act.

8. The High Court took note of the fact that Section 47 of the Act had been repealed from the statute book even before 1969 and even otherwise the provisions of the Act are applicable between landlord and tenant and have no application insofar as third parties are concerned. Accordingly, the High Court held that the transactions were hit by Section 47 of the 1950 Act and consequently Section 50B was also not required to be invoked. The High Court observed that the original plaintiff had lost his possession in the land on 25.5.1961 when he executed the agreement for sale and made over possession of the lands in question to the intending purchaser. Thereafter, possession changed hands several times. It was observed that had the defendants claimed directly through the original plaintiff No.1 under the agreement of sale dated 25.5.1961, it could always be said that they were in permitted possession and not in adverse possession which was, however, not the case as far as the suit properties were concerned, since possession had changed lands at least twice and at least from 15.8.1969 till the date of filing of the suit it could be contended that the defendants were in adverse possession of the properties as far as the plaintiffs were concerned.

9. The substantial question of law framed in the Second Appeal as to whether the transactions in question were hit by Sections 47 and 50B of the 1950 Act and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree as prayed for, were, therefore, answered by the High Court in the Second Appeal in the negative.

10. On behalf of the petitioners, it was sought to be pointed out that the High Court had erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court on the erroneous premise that the possession of the defendants in the suit were adverse to the interests of the plaintiffs, since all the transferees derived their claims to the lands through the petitioner. It was urged that it was on account of the first Agreement to Sell dated 25.5.1961 that the subsequent occupants of the land acquired possession thereof. Their claim, therefore, had to be traced from the said Agreement for Sale dated 25.5.1961 and not on the basis of the Agreements for Sale executed in their favour subsequently. It was urged that the High Court had committed an error of law in holding that the possession of the defendants was adverse to that of the plaintiffs and permissible in nature.

11. Even on the question of the applicability of Sections 47 and 50B of the 1950 Act to the transactions relating to the suit lands after the initial agreement for sale, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the defendants derived the right, if any, to possess the suit lands from the original plaintiff, the question of a third party interest did not arise, and, accordingly, the High Court was wrong in holding that the transactions were not hit by Section 47 of the 1950 Act.