Case: State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mohd Ashrafuddin

The holding of the respon dent consisted of survey Nos. 36, 37, 41, 42 and 92, all dry, admeasuring acres 88.46 cents in village Ghotkuri in district Adilabad. It appears that he had transferred 17 acres from survey Nos. 36 and 11 acres and 48 cents from survey No. 41 t o another person under unregistered sale deeds pursuant to an agreement for sale and had gifted away survey Nos. 37, 42 and 92 to his own son Naimuddin by a document written on a plain paper.Pursuant to a notice section 8 of the Act t he respondent filed a declaration in respect of his holding. In his declaration, however, he did not include in his holding the area transferred by him under two unregistered sale deeds and the aforesaid gift deed.The Land Reforms Tribunal ignoring the aforesaid transfers computed his holding at 1.7692 standard holding. Under the Act he was entitled to possess one standard holding only. He was, therefore, asked to surrender land equivalent to 0.7692 standard holding.The respondent feeling aggrieved took up the matter in appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. He, however, confined his appeal to the land covered by the two sale deeds in respect of survey Nos. 36 and 41 and submitted to the finding of the Land Reforms Tribunal regarding the gift of survey Nos. 37, 42 and 92. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal and ignored the sale deeds executed by the respondent in respect of survey Nos. 36 and 41. The res pondent challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal by preferring a revision to the High Court. The High Court in its turn allowed the revision holding that the land transferred under the two sale deeds could not be included in the holding of th e respondent for ascertaining the ceiling area. The High Court has given the benefit of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to the person in possession of the plots pursuant to the contract for sale and treated the land as a part of his holding. The State of Andhra Pradesh has come up in appeal to this Court.The Attorney General appearing for the State has raised only one contention. According to him, on a correct interpretation of the definition of holding as given in clause (i) of section 3 of the Act, the land transferred by the respondent will still continue to be a part of his holding. In order to appreciate the contention we have to read the definition of holding along with the explanation attached to it:3 (i) holding means the entire land held by a person-      (i) as an owner ;      (ii) as a limited owner ;      (iii) as an usufructuary mortgage ;      (iv) as a tenant ;      (v) who is in possession by virtue of a mor tgage by conditional sale or through part performance of a contract for the sale of land or otherwise, or in one or more of such capacities ;      and the expression to hold land shall be construed accordingly.      Explanation:-Where the same land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in any other capacity, such land shall be included in the holding of both such personsThe term holding takes in its fold land held by various persons in various capacities viz., as an owner, as a limited owner, as an usufructuary mortgage, as a tenant or as a person in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part pe rformance of a contract for the sale of land or otherwise, or in one or more of such capacities. The Explanation appended to the definition clearly contemplates that if the same land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in another capacity such land shall be included in the holding of both such persons. Obviously, therefore, the same land can be taken to be a part of the holding of more persons than one provided they hold it in different capacities.

Court's reasoning:
It is by now well settled that a person in possession pursuant to a contr act for sale does not get title to the land unless there is a valid document of title in his favour. In the instant case it has already been pointed out that the transferee came into possession in pursuance of an agreement for sale but no vali d deed of title was executed in his favour. Therefore, the ownership remained with the respondent-transferor. But even in the absence of a valid deed of title the possession pursuant to an agreement of transfer cannot be said to be illegal and t he transferee is entitled to remain in possession. If per chance he is dispossessed by the transferor, he can recover possession. The transferor cannot file any suit for getting back possession but all the same he will continue to be the o wner of the land agreed to be transferred. The respondent, in our considered opinion, satisfies the conditions contemplated by the definition of the term holding and the land transferred by him under a defective title deed will form part of his holding. The High Court, therefore, erred in holding that the land in possession of the transferee cannot be taken to be a part of the holding of the transferor-respondent.This takes us to the other contention raised by Shri P. Govindan Nair that the interpretation sought to be put by the Attorney General on the definition would create an anomalous position in as much as the same land according to the definition may form part of the holding of the transferor as well a s of the transferee or of the owner as well as of the tenantAt the first flush it may appear to be paradoxical to say that the same land could form part of the holding of various persons enumerated in the definition of holding but on a closer scrutiny of the relevant provisions of the Act the proposition presents no difficulty.