THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO C.R.P.No.4768 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri M.Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dt.27-08- 2009 in E.A.No.342 of 2008 in E.A.No.263 of 2008 in E.P.No.109 of 2000 in O.S.No.59 of 2000 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur. 3. The 1st respondent herein had filed O.S.No.59 of 2000 for recovery of money against 2nd respondent on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur. It was decreed on 16-09- 2000. Thereafter E.P.No.109 of 2000 was filed by 1st respondent against 2nd respondent for attachment of the E.P. schedule property belonging to 2nd respondent for recovery of the sum of Rs.53,983/- and also costs invoking Order 21 Rule 54, 64 and 66 CPC. 4. The property was then brought to sale and on 10-06-2002, sale was conducted and the husband of 3rd respondent and father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 by name Nageswararao became the auction purchaser. The sale was admittedly confirmed on 27-08-2008. 5. The petitioner herein filed E.A.No.342 of 2008 under Order 21 Rules 97, 98 and 101 CPC read with Section 47 CPC to set aside the sale of the E.P. schedule property by deciding the saleable interest of 2nd respondent in the property. He claimed that he had purchased the E.P. schedule property from 2nd respondent on 31-10-1997 under an agreement of sale after paying a sum of Rs.45,000/- and that possession of the property was delivered to him. He also claimed to have got issued legal notice dt.04-09- 2008 asking her to register the sale deed. He alleged that 2nd respondent sent a reply stating that she did not remember the transaction and requested that a photo copy of the agreement of sale allegedly executed by her be sent to her and that he had sent it. He contended that there is no saleable interest of 2nd respondent in respect of the E.P. schedule property and so the sale conducted by the Court is null and void. 6. The 1st respondent and respondent Nos.3 to 5 who are legal representatives of the auction purchaser filed counters contending that the petitioner is the henchmen of 2nd respondent and they colluded and prepared an unregistered agreement of sale and filed this petition. They contended that the E.P. schedule property was sold in public auction and sale certificate was issued and order for delivery of possession was also made. But when the Court Amin went to the property to deliver possession, the 2nd respondent refused to deliver possession, that subsequently police aid was granted for delivery of possession, that petitioner and 2nd respondent prepared the unregistered agreement to mislead the Court and thus sought dismissal of the E.A. 7. The 2nd respondent filed a counter contending that during the lifetime of her husband, she had sold the E.P. schedule property under an agreement of sale dt.17-11-1995 to one Sandra Bathaiah; that she again executed another agreement of sale dt.31-10-1997 in favour of the petitioner and that she is living in the E.P. schedule premises with the petitioner’s permission. She supported the petitioner. 8. No evidence was adduced in this application by either party. 9. By order dt.27-08-2009, the Court below dismissed the E.A. It held that the petitioner did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence and failed to substantiate his contention that he has purchased the petition schedule property on 31-10-1997 under an agreement of sale. 10. Challenging the same, this Revision Petition is filed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had in fact filed E.A.No.452 of 2008 in E.A.No.342 of 2008 to summon certain documents filed by him in O.S.No.184 of 2008 wherein he had sought specific performance of agreement of sale dt.31-10-1997 executed in his favour by 2nd respondent and the said document should have been sent for. He invoked Order 13 Rule 10 CPC. 12. This application was in fact allowed on 12-1-2008 but notwithstanding the same, no oral evidence was adduced and no documents were marked on behalf of petitioner. 13. Be that as it may, it is settled law that title to property does not pass under an agreement of sale in the absence of a registered sale deed. Admittedly there is no registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner even as on today and O.S.No.184 of 2008 is still pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kovur. Therefore, title to the property continued to be with 2nd respondent and did not get transferred to the petitioner under the agreement of sale dt.31-10-1997. 14. Therefore, the Court below was right in dismissing in E.A.No.342 of 2008 by its order dt.27-08-2009. 15. In this view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, no costs. 16. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 28-09-2015 kvr