IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.596 OF 2009 Between: K.Errappa (died) K.Papulamma and others …Petitioners A n d N.Narayana Murthy and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.596 OF 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 19-09-2006 in O.E.P.No.1 of 1999 in A.T.C.No.1 of 1984, 2002, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Special Officer, Madanapalle, wherein the said E.P filed by the first petitioner herein under Order XXI Rule 34 CPC seeking a direction to the respondents/judgment debtors 2 to 6 to receive the sale price deposited in Court by the decree holder and to execute the registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the E.P schedule land, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The first petitioner herein filed A.T.C.No.1 of 1984 under Section 16 of the A.P. Tenancy Act, 1956 for declaration that he is the cultivating tenant and also for a permanent injunction and to declare that the sale deeds in favour of respondents/judgment debtors 2 to 6 are nominal and void. After due enquiry, the ATC was allowed on 30-12-1991 directing the petitioner/decree holder to pay Rs.17,000/- being the value of the property within two months and to obtain sale deed from judgment debtors 2 to 6. The respondents/judgment debtors filed appeal in A.T.A.No.2 of 1992 before the II- Additional District Judge, Madanapalle and the said appeal was dismissed on 20-04-1998. Thereupon, the petitioner/decree holder deposited the amount of Rs.17,000/- into Court on 04-05- 1998, after filing the E.P. Aggrieved by the dismissal of A.T.A.No.2 of 1992, the respondents preferred C.R.P.No.343 of 1988 and the same was dismissed on 22-02-2006. Thereafter, the respondents/judgment debtors filed a counter in the EP contending that as per the decree, the decree holder was to pay Rs.17,000/- within two months from 30-12-1991, the date of the decree and the said period expired on 31-01-1992, but the judgment debtors failed to deposit the amount within the time stipulated, as he deposited the same on 04-05-1998. As per the decree, in the event of default in depositing the amount in time, the decree holder would lose his right to purchase the schedule land. In the appeal filed by the judgment debtors on 12-02-1992 interim stay was granted on 04-03-1992 and the same was made absolute on 30-03-1992. Thus, there was no stay during the period from 30-11-1991 to 04-02-1992. As the decree holder failed to deposit the amount within two months from 30-11-1991, he has lost his right to obtain the sale deed. 4. During enquiry in the E.P., the decree holder was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on his side. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 5. A.T.C.No.1 of 1984 was allowed on 30-12-1991. The respondents filed appeal on 12-02-1992 i.e., within two months of the date of decree. The stay was granted in I.A.No.128 of 1992 in appeal on 04-03-1992 and it was made absolute on 30-03-1992. Thus, the stay was granted more than two months after the date of the decree in A.T.C.No.1 of 1984. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited the amount of Rs.17,000/- as directed in the decree within the said period of two months. In the impugned order, the learned Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge dismissed the EP holding that the decree holder failed to comply with the direction contained in the decree. The learned Special Officer dealt with the matter under the provisions of Order XX Rule 14 CPC which deals with decree in pre-emption suit and it runs as follows:- (1) Where the Court decrees a claim to pre-emption in respect of a particular sale of property and the purchase money has not been paid into Court, the decree shall – (a) specify a day on or before which the purchase money shall be so paid; and (b) direct that on payment into Court of such purchase money together with the costs (if any) decreed against the plaintiff, on or before the day referred to in clause (a), the defendant shall deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff, whose title thereto shall be deemed to have accrued from the date of such payment, but that, if the purchase money and the costs (if any) are not so paid, the suit shall be dismissed with costs. Applying the law contained in the above provision, the learned Special officer held that as the purchase money is not deposited within time, the EP stands dismissed. It is to be noted that though the decree contains a direction to the petitioner/decree holder to pay the amount of Rs.17,000/- within two months, the judgment states that respondents 2 to 6 shall execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in case the petitioner wants to purchase the lands. As the value mentioned in the sale deeds Exs.B-1 and B-2 has not been challenged by the petitioner, the Special Officer accepted the said value to be reasonable. Accordingly, it was directed that if he intends to purchase the said lands, he shall do so by offering the sale price of Rs.17,000/- within two months from the date of decree, failing which he shall lose his right to purchase the lands. According to the petitioner, he offered the sale price by issuing a legal notice on 03-01-1992 i.e., within four days from the date of decree and expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the same and demanded the respondents to come to the Sub-Registrar’s office on 10-01-1992 to receive the amount and execute the sale deed and the respondents got issued a reply stating that they are preferring the appeal and, therefore, they are not attending the Sub- Registrar’s office on 10-01-1992. He would, therefore, contend that he has tendered the amount within time as directed in the order of the Special Officer, but the respondents refused to receive the same. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Special Officer erred in applying the principle contained in Order XX Rule 14 CPC, which is applicable to the case of a decree in a suit for pre-emption and ignored the special provisions contained in Section 15 of the A.P. (A.A) Tenancy Act, 1956. Section 15 of the said Act deals with cultivating tenant’s right to first purchase the land leased to him. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 contemplates that any landlord intending to sell the land leased to a cultivating tenant shall first give notice to such cultivating tenant, of his intention to sell such land, and requiring him to exercise his option to purchase the land. Sub-Section (2) states that if the cultivating tenant exercises his option to purchase the land, the landlord shall sell the land to such cultivating tenant in accordance with such agreement between them regarding the price payable. Sub-section (3) state that where the cultivating tenant exercises option to purchase the land, but there is no agreement in regard to the price payable, the landlord or the cultivating tenant may apply to the Special Officer for the determination of the reasonable price. Sub-section (4) states that reasonable price determined under sub-section (3) shall be payable in ten equal annual installments in such manner as may be prescribed; and the sale shall be deemed to have become effective on the payment of the first installment and land shall be deemed to be the security for the payment of the balance of the installments. Sub-section (5) states that if the cultivating tenant fails to exercise his option to purchase the land or fails to pay the first installment of the reasonable price, the landlord shall be entitled to sell the land to any other person. Sub-Section (6) states that any sale of the land by the landlord in contravention of this section, shall be voidable at the option of the cultivating tenant. 7. Thus, the scheme of Section 15 would show that it is a complete code in itself, in the sense that it enables the cultivating tenant to exercise the right of his choice to purchase the land and also contains the procedure as to how the option can be exercised and the mode of determination of the sale price in the absence of an agreement and mode of payment of the sale price by installments and as to when the sale would become effective and also contemplates the consequences in the event of failure of the cultivating tenant to exercise the option and to pay the first installment. Though the Special Officer has noticed the discrepancy between the judgment and decree regarding the direction to pay the sale price, the judgment merely directing the petitioner to offer the sale price and the decree directing to deposit the same, has failed to consider the impact of the said discrepancy and going by the provisions of Order XX Rule 14 CPC held that the decree holder shall deposit the amount in Court on or before the stipulated date and since he failed to make the deposit, dismissed the E.P. The impact of the exchange of notices between the parties subsequent to the passing of the decree vis-à-vis the direction contained in the judgment that the decree holder shall offer sale price of Rs.17,000/- within two months, is also not considered by the Court below, while noting that the petitioner/decree holder offered the amount by way of issuing notice and it is only the respondents who have denied to receive the same. The Special Officer, however, proceeded to hold that when the respondents refused to receive, the petitioner ought to have deposited the amount into Court because he was in no way prevented from doing so. Neither the decree nor the judgment would contain a direction that the petitioner shall deposit the amount into Court. The judgment directs the petitioner to offer the sale price of Rs.17,000/- within two months, whereas the decree directs the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.17,000/- to respondents 2 to 6 within two months. There is no direction that the petitioner shall deposit the amount into Court either in the decree or in the judgment. Be that as it may, when Section 15 of the Special Enactment i.e., Tenancy Act prescribes special procedure and enables the petitioner to pay sale price in ten equal annual installments, with the consequences of default in such payment, the learned Special Officer ought to have considered the contentions raised by the parties in the light of Section 15 of the Act. The impugned order does not make any reference to Section 15 of the Act at all. The specific contention of the petitioner is that resort to Order XX Rule 14 CPC which deals with a suit for pre- emption is misplaced and it is only the special provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act that governed the situation. Inasmuch as the Special Officer failed to consider the issue in the light of the special provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, it is considered just and proper to remand the matter back to the learned Special Officer for consideration afresh and disposal of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dismissing the E.P is set aside and the E.P is restored to file for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Court below, as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th June, 2011 Lrkm.