THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.C.C.A.M.P.NOS.297 & 304 OF 2010 AND C.C.C.A.NO.169 OF 1995 JUDGMENT:- The defendant in O.S.No.330 of 1988 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is the appellant herein. The suit one was filed for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property by evicting the defendant and for recovery of the damages with regard to past and future. The allegations in the plaint, which was originally instituted against the first defendant, go to show that the first defendant is known to the plaintiff and he represented that there is a house site of 600 square yards available for sale forming part of in Sy.No.45 in Yousufguda revenue village and believing his representation, he entered into an agreement of sale on 03-11-1977 and a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid. The above sale transaction could not be arranged and the defendant represented that the house bearing No.8- 3-2000 which is the suit schedule property is available and has purchased from one B.C.Moses by paying the sale consideration and, therefore, the plaintiff has become the original owner of the property. The property was given possession and the sale deed was executed on 21-08-1978. The plaintiff was transferred to Rourkela and permitted the defendant to stay in the premises. The plaintiff returned in the year 1988 and demanded the defendant to vacate the premises, but, he did not do so. Hence the suit. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the fact that the plaintiff is known to him. He denied the allegation that he arranged for sale of 600 square yards in Sy.No.45 or for sale of the suit schedule property. The property does not belong to B.C. Moses and the sale as such is not valid. The allegation that the plaintiff put the defendant in permissive possession is also denied. The value of the property is not correct. The defendant claimed that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property in his own right as the son of Somaiah, who is the owner of the property. Therefore, he pleaded for dismissal of the suit. Subsequently, the second defendant added as a party and he filed a written statement touching on the rights in Sy.No.45 and denying any knowledge of the arrangement between the first defendant and plaintiff. He claimed that the house bearing No.8-3- 2000 together with open land surrounded by a compound wall belongs to him. He also denied the knowledge of the first defendant being allowed to occupy the property. He denied the sale in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit is liable to be dismissed. A rejoinder has been filed by the plaintiff contending that B.C.Moses has purchased the property from the first defendant on 20-08-1973 and the said alienation was not questioned by the second defendant and, therefore, the second defendant cannot claim any right in the property. On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues have been framed and on behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.B-1 document. After considering the evidence on record, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant Nos.3 to 6 who are the legal representatives of second defendant along with first defendant. While the appeal is pending, the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff filed an application i.e., C.C.C.A.M.P No.297 of 2010 to implead the respondent Nos.10 to 12 as parties to the suit and he also filed C.C.C.A.M.P No.304 of 2010 for grant of injunction and the said applications are opposed. Now the points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property and entitled for possession of the property? 2. Whether the proposed parties can be added as respondent Nos.10 to 12 and C.C.C.A.MP Nos.297 of 2010 and 304 of 2010 are maintainable? POINTS:- The strength of the case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant is known to him and initially he arranged for sale of 600 square yards of vacant site in Sy.No.45 and received a consideration of Rs.5000/-, but, subsequently it could not be done and later he arranged for sale of the suit schedule property, which is house property bearing D.No.8-3-2000 in an area of 300 square yards purchased from B.C.Moses who is the owner of the property and the first defendant was permitted to be in possession when the plaintiff was shifted to Rourkela. So far as the sale of the vacant site in Sy.No.45 and the failure of it are concerned, it is not very much material for this case. The question is as to whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit schedule property and whether the possession of the first defendant is permissive or unlawful ? The first defendant supported by second defendant claims that the suit schedule property belongs to the second defendant and consequently there can be no alienation by B.C.Moses in favour of the plaintiff when the title is in dispute. Evidently, it is for the plaintiff to prove the same. In support of it, he relied upon Ex.A-2 registered sale deed dated 28-07-1978 executed by B.C.Moses with house bearing D.No.8-3-2000 in an extent of 300 square yards. Possession was also said to have been delivered. The source of title of B.C.Moses is said to be sale deed Ex.A-3 dated 20- 08-1973 where under the first defendant has executed a registered sale deed with regard to suit schedule property in favour of B.C.Moses. The first defendant in his written statement did not question the same. On the other hand, it is the plea of the second defendant that he is the owner of the property. For some reason or the other, the first defendant did not go into the box. DW.1 is the 3rd defendant and one of the sons of the second defendant and brother of first defendant. He claims that the suit schedule property belongs to them. Though he claims that the extent of the property is 900 square yards and belongs to him, he did not file the document. The voters list relied on by him showing his father’s name as the owner of the property has no relevance. He did not even say as to how he or his father has got title or right in the suit schedule property. According to him, he has not filed any mutation records to show that the house was mutated in his name or in the name of his father. There was no challenge for the sale deed Ex.A-3 executed by the first defendant. The evidence of DW.2 that the house belongs to the second defendant is of no use since there is no document. Merely because, the defendants are residing in the property, which the fact is admitted does not create any right or title to the property. Therefore, as rightly found by the lower court, there is no document to show that the second defendant was the owner of the property. The sale deed Ex.A-3 was executed by the first defendant in favour of Moses and Moses in turn has executed the sale Ex.A-2 in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the above material evidence on record clearly goes to show that the first defendant is fully aware that he sold the property to Moses and the transfer in favour of the plaintiff is only could have been at his instance. It was suggested to PW.1 that the transaction and the earlier agreement was in collusion between the plaintiff and the first defendant for which there is absolutely no material. That being so, the claim of the defendant for the suit schedule property cannot be accepted and even in the written statement of the defendant No.1, he sought to project that the property belongs to the second defendant and that he was in possession of the property. As against the registered sale deeds Ex.A-2 and A-3, there is no document to prove the rights of any of the defendants. A stray entry in voters list or payment of tax will not confer any title and the fact that the first defendant has not denied the sale by him in favour of Moses and did not tender himself for cross examination clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and the occupation of the first defendant is not lawful and consequently the decree passed by the learned Judge does not call for any interference. However, the applications were filed by one Thakur Naresh Kumar Singh claiming to be a G.P.A Holder of original plaintiff contending that some alienations have been effected in favour of the proposed respondents showing wrong house numbers and consequently they should be added as a parties to the suit. Evidently, the present claim is not valid and as can be seen from para.3 of the affidavit, the original plaintiff K.Srinivas filed E.P.No.26 of 1996 and obtained physical possession of the property through court from the judgment debtors. The present G.P.A. holder claims to have purchased the property on 27-12-2006 and wants to litigate in the suit. The disputes that have arisen subsequent to the institution of the suit have no relevancy and added to that already the suit O.S.No.3964 of 2008 was filed against the proposed respondents and questioning the rights in the property. Consequently, at this stage, the present applications does not survive for consideration as the decree itself is said to have been satisfied by delivery of possession to the original plaintiff and the subsequent litigation cannot be entertained. Therefore, there are no merits in the application and hence City Civil Court Appeal as well as applications are liable be dismissed. Accordingly, the City Civil Court Appeal as well as C.C.C.A.MP.Nos.297 and 304 of 2010 are dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 14-11-2011 TSNR