SUBHAN REDDY Vs. KONNETI MALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The respodent laid the suit forpermanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule fend bearing Survey No. 124 of Angadi Raichur village, admeasuring Ac. 12-30 guntas. The case of the respondents is that the appellant entered into an agreement of sale with the respondents on January 1, 1967 and delivered possession of the property to the respondents and ever since, they have-been in possession and enjoyment fir their own right. The appllant, without exeauting a proper sate-deed and registering it; is threatening to disposses the respondedents. Then they filed the suit.

(2.) The appellant admits that he executed the agreement of sale, buthe pleads agreement of reconveyance, but the respondents refused to reconvey the same. He disputes delivery of possession to the respondents. On the other hand, he pleads that permanent injunction cannot be granted against the trur owner. Both the Courts found that the respondents are in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement of sale. Therefore, permanent injunction was granted. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) Sri Vasudeva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contendsthat under Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 for short, "the Act" Prior sanction of the Tahsildar is mandatory for permanent alienation. In this case, no such sanetion was obtained. The validation of the sale has also not been taken under Sec. 50-B of the Act. Therefore, the possession of the respondents is unlawful. So, injunction cannot be granted against a true owner, the appellant. Therefore the grant of injunction is illegal. He placed reliance on Ushanna vs. Sambu Gand #1 .