PASUMARTI RAMULU Vs. NUTHI ANANTHA RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. He brought the suit on 28-9-1958 for the specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit lands for Rs. 14,000, Ex. A-1 dated 21-10-1957, which was executed in bis favour by the defendant Under the terms of Ex. A-l, the defendant received a sum of Rs. 2,000 as earnest money and promised to get the permission of the Government and to execute the safe deed hi favour of the plaintiff. In his written statement, the defendant denied the agreement altogether and also contended that the alleged contract of sale was unenforceable by reason of Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950). The learned Subordinate Judge found, on a consideration of the evidence, that the defendant did execute Ex. A-1 and that he has also received a total sum of Rs. 5600 towards the purchase money. But he upheld the defendants contention that the contract was not enforceable for want of the previous sanction of the Tahsildar which is necessary under Section 47 of Act XXI of 1950. He therefore decreed the suit against the defendant for payment of Rs. 5600 with interest. which was the alternative relief claimed by the plaintiff, The contention in the appeal is that the plaintiff is entitled to the main relief, of specific performance by directing the defendant to apply for sanction under the said Section 47 and to execute the sale deed after obtaining the sanction.

(2.) The appellants contention is well found-ed. In Motilal v. Nanhelal, AIR 1930 PC 287 the question arose whether Section 59(1) of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920, requiring the sanction of the Revenue Officer for transfer of the cultivating rights in sir lands was an obstacle to the decree for .specific performance directing the 1st defendant to apply for such sanction and to transfer the lands to the plaintiff after receipt of that sanction. Sir Lancelot Sander son said that by the 1st defendants agreeing to transfer the cultivating rights in the sir lands,

(3.) Sri V. Madhava Rao, the learned counsel for the defendant, does not dispute the correctness of the lower Courts finding that he executed Ex. A-1 and received a total sum of Rs. 5600 in pursuance thereof. He has merely attempted to support the learned Subordinate Judges view that Ex. A-l was unenforceable. Section 47 of Act XXI of 1950 omitting the proviso to Sub-section (1), which is immaterial, is in the following terms: