THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1748 of 1998 Date: 02-09-2009 Between: T.N.Anbayagan. ..Petitioner And Balakrishnan and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1748 of 1998 ORDER: The petitioner filed A.T.C.No.3 of 1989 before the Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Chittoor, against Smt. Radhamma @ Radharukmani and Smt. Padmavathi for the relief of declaration that he is the cultivating tenant in respect of Acs.2.67 cents of land in survey No.613 of Murukambat Village, Chittoor Mandal and District (for short ‘the land’). According to him, the land was leased by Vinayaka Mudali, husband of Radharukmani and brother of Padmavathi on 05.06.1987 under a document marked as Ex.A1. He alleged that the respondents in the A.T.C. were attempting to dispose of the property to his exclusion. He has also prayed for the relief of right of preemptive purchase under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. The A.T.C. was mainly contested by Padmavathi, sister of Vinayaka Mudali. She pleaded that the property was owned by Sri Manickyam Mudali, father of herself and Vinayaka Mudali and by operating will deeds executed by him, she became the owner of the schedule property. During the pendency of the A.T.C., Padmavathi died. The legal representatives of Padmavathi were brought on record as respondent Nos.3 to 9. They are the respondents herein. The first respondent pursued the matter and she pleaded that O.S.No.181 of 1989 was filed before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the land in survey No.613 and the petitioner herein is a party to that suit. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial Court allowed the A.T.C. with a rider that it shall be subject to the result of O.S.No.181 of 1989. The respondents herein filed A.T.A.No.2 of 1996 before the District Court, Chittoor, feeling aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court in A.T.C. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal, taking the view that the suit land was held by Padmavathi and Radharukmani in equal shares and in that view of the matter, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. The same is challenged in this revision. Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view taken by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained either on facts or on law. He submits that the trial Court allowed the A.T.C. subject to the result of O.S.No.181 of 1989 and as long as the declaration prayed for in that suit was not granted, the right of the petitioner as a cultivating tenant cannot be defeated. He contents that neither the civil Courts determined the entitlement or shares of Padmavathi and Radharukmani vis-à-vis the property nor any independent evidence was recorded on that aspect in the present set of proceedings. The learned counsel submits that the right of the petitioner is guaranteed under Section 11 of the Act and the judgment under revision cannot be sustained. Sri R.V. Prasad, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the land was held by father of Vinayaka Mudali and Padmavathi. He submits that even if any lease was granted by Vinayaka Mudali, it does not bind Padmavathi, and her legal representatives, the respondents herein. He contends that though the trial Court granted the relief in favour of the petitioner subject to the outcome of O.S.No.181 of 1989, the said suit was dismissed as not pressed on account of subsequent developments resulting in assumption of possession of land by them. He further submits that if the petitioner intends to work out his remedies under Section 15 of the Act, he has to file a separate suit. The petitioner filed A.T.C. for a two fold relief, namely, to declare that he is a cultivating tenant and to enforce his preemptive right under Section 15 of the Act. The basis for his claim is a lease said to have been granted to him by Vinayaka Mudali, vide Ex.A1. Had Vinayaka Mudali been absolute owner of the property, there would not have been any difficulty in acceding to the request of the petitioner. The reason is that Section 11 of the Act protects the rights of the tenant despite any change in title in respect of the land. If Vinayaka Mudali was the absolute owner, any transfer made by him or succession on account of his death would not have affected the rights of the petitioner. If, however, Vinayaka Mudali himself is not the absolute owner of the property, the lease or the tenancy created by him in favour of the petitioner does not bind the other persons, who are entitled for the land in part or in its entirety. That however, is a matter, which the tenancy Court cannot embark upon. It would become relevant in case any steps were initiated for eviction of the petitioner, provided he is still in possession. It is urged by the respondents that the petitioner has since been evicted and the land has been transferred to various individuals. Reference is made to O.S.No.141 of 2002 filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, for the relief of perpetual injunction, dismissal of the same by the trial Court and approval of the same in an appeal. These, however, are the aspects, which are beyond the scope of the present set of proceedings. The petitioner deserves to be granted the declaratory relief, subject, however, to certain conditions. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The order passed by the Special Officer- cum-Principal District Munsif, Chittoor, in A.T.C.No.3 of 1989 dated 29.01.1996 is modified to the following effect:- (a) The petitioner shall be entitled to be declared as a cultivating tenant in respect of the land, only against Vinayaka Mudali and his legal heirs. The rights of the petitioner are protected under Section 11 of the Act de hors any transfer made by the said Vinayaka Mudali or devolution through succession that has taken place, on account of his death; (b) The lease in favour of the petitioner brought into existence by Vinayaka Mudali does not bind any other person who is otherwise entitled to the land in its entirety, or in part; (c) In case the petitioner is in possession of the land, he shall be entitled to enforce the right under Section 15 of the Act against the legal representatives of Vinayaka Mudali or anybody claiming through him; and (d) If, on the other hand, the petitioner is not in possession, and any sale was affected in contravention of Section 15 of the Act, it shall be open to him to work out his remedies in a separate set of proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 02nd September, 2009 GHN/KH