THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Second Appeal No.280 of 1994 JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff in the lower appellate Court. He filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.1993, passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Bhongir, wherein at the instance of the respondents-defendants, the judgment and decree, dated 30.03.1990, obtained by the appellant in O.S.No.81 of 1982 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ramannapet was set aside. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant laid the present suit for perpetual injunction on the strength of a sale deed, dated 09.06.1972. The suit was contested by the respondents-defendants denying the sale and also the fact that the said sale deed was not a registered one and therefore, no title passes. The trial Court, after holding a regular enquiry, wherein both sides adduced their evidence, both oral and documentary, decreed the suit. However, in appeal, the lower appellate Court, while once again going into the material on record, recorded a categorical finding that the appellant-plaintiff failed to establish by all means valid title and continuous possession in respect of the suit schedule property and accordingly, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal by the appellant-plaintiff. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record, it is seen that the suit is one for bare injunction and it is always open to the appellant-plaintiff to seek appropriate reliefs by filing comprehensive suit for declaration of title or such other reliefs to which he is entitled to under law. Unless such relief is sought in the suit, the question of granting consequential reliefs does not arise. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration warranting interference with the impugned order in the second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the appellant to file a fresh suit, if so advised, seeking appropriate relief, which shall have to be considered on merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made in these proceedings. No costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J Dt.29.07.2010 VGB