HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU SECOND APPEAL No.1020 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Second Appeal is directed against Judgment dated 30.6.2009 in A.S. No. 8 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby the decree and judgment dated 17.6.2006 in O.S. No. 214 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur was confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as under: The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the appellant and respondent No.2 are the defendants 1 and 2, in the suit. The plaintiff filed O.S No. 214 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property on the ground that she purchased the property under Ex.A2, registered sale deed, from one K. Leela Sulochana Rani, who purchased the same from one G.K. Navaratna, M. Naganna, G. Ramanjaneyulu, M. Anjaneyulu and G.Eswaraiah under Ex.A1, registered sale deed. When the defendants are trying to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over the said property, the plaintiff filed the Suit. 3. The first defendant filed the written statement denying the right and interest of the original owner and claimed that he purchased the property in dispute under an agreement of sale from one L. Vithal das, who, in turn, sold the property to one Azad during the pendency of the Suit and that the first defendant and his wife one E. Padmavathi are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as owners. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the suit. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration : 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? 2) To what relief ? 5. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established her prima facie title in respect of the suit schedule property and also possession and accordingly decreed the Suit granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. On appeal, the lower appellate Court, confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court through the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present second appeal is filed. 7. The substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are whether the decree for perpetual injunction is maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration; that whether the lower appellate Court was justified in disposing of the appeal without formulating the points for consideration and whether the suit is maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No,1 contended that the appellant purchased the property from L. Vithal Das under an agreement of sale and therefore, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the property and granting of injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration. 9. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record that there are no perverse findings and they need not be interfered with. None appears for respondents 2 to 4. 10. Originally, the property belonged to Shotriumdars. One V. Saradamma purchased the property from Shotriumdars under two different sale deeds dated 11.11.1957 and 2.3.1958. The case of the plaintiff is that G.K. Navaratna and four others purchased an extent of Acs.4.00 in Survey No. 16 from Saradamma under a registered sale deed dated 21.6.1983. The evidence of the plaintiff as P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 shows that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest in respect of the property, as she purchased the property by way of registered sale deed under Ex.A2, dated 4.9.1996 said to have been executed by one K. Leela Sulochana Rani. The vendor of the plaintiff purchased the said property under Ex.A1 on 16.9.1983 under registered sale deed from G.K. Navaratna, M. Naganna, G. Ramanjaneyulu, M. Anjaneyulu and G.Eswaraiah and those documents have not been seriously denied or disputed. Further, as on the date of filing of the suit, the first defendant has no right, title, or interest in the property because even according to him, he purchased the property under an agreement of sale from L. Vithal Das. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that in pursuance of agreement of sale, defendant was put in possession of plaint schedule property. Defendant has not filed a single document to show that he was in the possession of the property as on the date of filing of suit. There cannot be any dispute that the agreement of sale does not confer any title to the property unless it is transformed into a regular sale deed. That was not done and the said document has not been filed into the Court. Therefore, the first defendant has no right, title or interest so as to interfere with the possession of plaintiff. There is evidence on record, which would go to show that the first defendant who has no title to the property was trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that the plaintiff has established her title to the property, the first defendant is not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have rightly decreed the suit and there is no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal so as to admit the same. 11. It is not the case of the first defendant that the findings of both the Courts below are perverse or contrary to law or based on inadmissible evidence. So also, it is not the case of the first defendant that inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration and admissible evidence has been overlooked. 12. In view of the fact that the plaintiff has got prima facie right, title and interest in the property in question, the question of seeking declaration of title does not arise. The first defendant has also not filed any documents to show that he has got right, title and interest in the property. Therefore, the grant of perpetual injunction is maintainable. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-first defendant stated that the first defendant claims to have purchased the property through a registered document. No finding need to be given on that aspect because there is no pleading and evidence with regard to the same. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Courts below. 14. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU,J DATE: 15.11.2010 pnb