JUDGMENT S.B, Bhargava, J. - This is plaintiff's appeal against an order refusing an ad-interim injunction. 2. Late Abdul Samad, father of defendant-respondents no. 2 to 6 and husband of defendant-respondent no. 1 filed Original Suit No. 593 of 1961 against Abdul Rahim, defendant-respondent no. 7 in the Court of Munsif, Jhansi for ejectment and arrears of rent on ground of default. Fie described the house by No. 56 as also by boundaries. Suit was residented by defendant-respondent no. 7 who inter alia denied title of Abdul Samad. Ultimately suit was decreed on 24th April, 1963. We are not concerned with decree for ejectment. It is not disputed that Execution Case No. 173 of 1970 for ejectment of defendant-respondent no. 7 from the house is still pending. It is also not disputed that after the death of Abdul Samad his widow, sons and daughters are pursuing the execution. It appears that dispute arose about the boundaries of the house. Plaintiff-appellant filed objections under order 21, Rule 99 C.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Case No. 48 of 1972. On 17th November, 1973 this objection was dismissed as not maintainable. Plaintiff-appellant filed Original Suit No. 42 of 1975 against the heirs of Abdul Samad and Abdul Rahman under Order 21, Rule 103, C.P.C. But the same was dismissed in default of parties on 1st February, 1977. Application for amendment of boundaries in the afore-mentioned ejectment suit was filed on 16th September, 1980 and was dismissed on 4th December, 1980. Civil Revision No. 39 of 1982 was preferred against the aforesaid order of dismissal. But on 8th July, 1983 the revision was dismissed with the reasons that amendment sought could not help the decree holder. On 12th September, 1983 another application for amendment of boundaries was filed and it was dismissed on 3rd May, 1986. Against that order Civil Revision No. 163 of 1986 was filed and was allowed on 12th August, 1987. Thus the boundaries were amended. Then plaintiff appellant filed suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of House No. 56. Me further prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendant-respondents No. 1 to 6 from executing aforesaid decree of 1963. Plaintiff-appellant rested his title on patta alleged to have been executed by the Zamindar Smt. Shakooran Begum on 14th April, 1968 and asserted that he got the house in dispute constructed. Me further prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendant-respondents No. 1 to 6 from executing aforesaid decree of 1963. Plaintiff-appellant rested his title on patta alleged to have been executed by the Zamindar Smt. Shakooran Begum on 14th April, 1968 and asserted that he got the house in dispute constructed. He attacked title of Abdul Samad and asserted his own possession over the house. He complained that by execution of aforementioned decree defendant-respondents no. 1 to 6 intend to susurp his house. He further alleged collusion between Abdul Samad and after him his heirs and Abdul Rahim. 3. With plaint plaintiff-appellant presented application for ad-interim injunction restraining defendant-respondent no. 1 to 6 from executing aforesaid decree. Grounds urged by him were the same as alleged in the plaint. 4. Defendant-respondents No. 1 to 6 resisted the application for ad-interim injunction. They reiterated title of Abdul Samad and pointed out that even suits No. 507 of 1957 and 378 of 1960 brought by Abdul Samad against Abdul Rahman for arrears of rent were decreed. They alleged that plaintiff-appellant has been put up by Abdul Rahman. According to them there was only clerical mistake in description of the boundaries. But the house was identifiable at the spot. According to them suit of the plaintiff appellant is barred by res judicata and limitation. They attacked the alleged patta of Smt. Shakooran Begum as fictitious. They further alleged that at any rate she had no right to execute the patta. 5. Learned trial court found that plaintiff-appellant has no prima facie case and so dismissed the application for an ad interim injunction. 6. Being aggrieved plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court. 7. At admission stage parties exchanged affidavits and appeal has been finally heard. 8. Observation of the learned trial court was that decision of the suit of 1975 brought by plaintiff-appellant was the present suit. This observation may not be taken to be correct because it is admitted that the said suit was dismissed in default of parties and under order 9, Rule 4 C.P.C. plaintiff-appellant had a right to file fresh suit. View of the learned trial court that plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation may not be also taken to be correct. It is now evident that in 1987 boundaries have been ordered to be corrected. After that plaintiff-appellant had fresh apprehension and a new cause of action. View of the learned trial court that plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation may not be also taken to be correct. It is now evident that in 1987 boundaries have been ordered to be corrected. After that plaintiff-appellant had fresh apprehension and a new cause of action. So long as the boundaries were not corrected, the plaintiff-appellant could have sit quiet because he was satisfied that decree for ejectment would not be executed, but once the boundaries were corrected there was fresh could on the alleged title and possession of the plaintiff-appellant. 9. Although much has been said about title of Abdul Samad, all that is not relevant to this suit. Firstly it should not be forgotten that a plaintiff can succeed only on the strength of his own case and not on the weak-ness of defendant's case. Secondly, the suit of 1961 brought by Abdul Samad was based on relationship of landlord and tenant to which title was irrelevant. Once relationship of landlord and tenant was established suit could be certainly decreed irrespective of want of title. Much has also been said against the validity of the decree and proceedings of execution particularly correction of boundaries. All that is also irrelevant in this case because as a third party plaintiff-appellant cannot go behind the decree or into the validity of its execution. So far as allegation of collusion between Abdul Samad after him his heirs on the one hand and Abdul Rahman on the other is concerned, it would suffice to say that execution of decree is being resisted and execution of 1970 is still pending. On the other hand it appears that even during executions plaintiff-appellant made his appearance in execution proceedings and created obstruction. In these circumstances allegations of collusion between the decree holders and judgment debtor mentioned above prima facie appear to be not true. 10. Then prima facie title of plaintiff-appellant may be examined. His case rests on a patta for construction of a building and he never described it as a registered document. Evert if the patta is there, so long as this not a registered document it cannot be relied upon as basis oi title. It should not be forgotten that transferee of plaintiff-appellant is not a party to the suit and there is no cause of action against her. What plaintiff-appellant is trying to make out is title against 3rd parties. Evert if the patta is there, so long as this not a registered document it cannot be relied upon as basis oi title. It should not be forgotten that transferee of plaintiff-appellant is not a party to the suit and there is no cause of action against her. What plaintiff-appellant is trying to make out is title against 3rd parties. For that theory of part performance enshrined in section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act cannot be available. On the other hand it appears that according to Municipal register of 1960 to 1965 appellant was living in House No. 64. He may have obtained sanction from the Municipal Board for construction of a house. But that cannot be a guarantee that he constructed a house. In the circumstances of the case after considering the entire material think that the trial court exercised discretion illegally or on unsound principles. At any rate this appeal does not require interference. 11. It is also evident that decree of ejectment was passed in 1963 and since than the decree holder and his heirs are trying to execute the decree. They have been pursuing the decree made by court. Even if it is ultimately found that plaintiff-appellant is the owner of the house he can get back possession by adding relief of possession in his suit. Hence, balance of convenience cannot be said to be in favour of plaintiff-appellant. 12. In result this appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. Stay order dated 17th December, 1987 is vacated. Since the appeal is being disposed of at admission stage no order for costs need be passed.