JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal was filed by Shri Jhamandas (original-appellant-plaintiffs), challenging the judgment & decree dated 30.09.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur City Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in the Civil Suit No.76/89, whereby the trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed for seeking possession of the suit premises as also the mesne-profits from the respondents-defendants. During the pendency of the appeal, the original appellant-plaintiff had expired, and therefore his legal representatives were brought on record. 2. The facts in nut-shell giving rise to the present appeal are that the original appellant Jhaman Das (plaintiff) had filed the suit against the respondents-defendants alleging inter alia that he had purchased the property ad-measuring 310 square yards, as described in para 1 of the plaint vide the registered sale deed dated 22.09.1967 from Major Thakur Raghuvir Singh Ji. According to the plaintiff, he wanted to raise construction on the disputed part of the said land, however the defendant Nos.1 & 2 along-with other persons were raising obstructions and therefore the plaintiff had to file one suit seeking perpetual injunction against them, which was decreed by the court of Munsiff on 01.09.1978. It was further case of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos.1 & 2 claiming themselves to be the President and Secretary of the defendant No.3-Society, subsequently had let out the said disputed premises to the defendant No.4, who had started carrying on business therein, and therefore the plaintiff had served a notice upon the defendants on 21.08.1979. In response to the said notice, the defendant No.4 had given the reply stating inter alia that he was the tenant of the defendant Nos.1, 2 & 3 in respect of the said disputed premises. The appellant-plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit seeking possession of the said premises from the respondents-defendants and for mesne-profits. The said suit was resisted by the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 by filing their joint written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contending inter alia that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land, and the land in question being agricultural land, the suit was not maintainable in the civil court. The said suit was resisted by the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 by filing their joint written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contending inter alia that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land, and the land in question being agricultural land, the suit was not maintainable in the civil court. It was also contended that the respondent No.4 was let out the disputed premises for looking after the well and temple in the public interest and that no cause of action had arisen for the plaintiff to file the suit. It was also contended that neither the Government nor the Urban Improvement Board had acquired the said land after following the due process of law, and therefore the Urban Improvement Board had no authority to sell the said land to Thakur Raghuvir Singhji. The respondents-defendants had also contended that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 as in the earlier suit, the plaintiff had not sought any declaration along-with the permanent injunction. 3. The trial court from the pleadings of the parties had framed the following issues:- " 1- D;k oknh fooknxzLr lEifRr dk vf/kdkjh o Lokeh gSA 2- D;k izfroknh 1 o 2 muds fo:) oknh ds fgr esa U;k;ky; eqaflQ t;iqj uxj if'pe }kjk ikfjr fMdzh fnukad 18-12-73 ls ikcUn ugha gSA 3- D;k fooknxzLr lEifRr dk ewY; 194000@& :0 gS vkSj U;k;&'kqYd vi;kZIr gSA 4- D;k oknh ds fo:) elyk ,sLVkiy ykxw gSA 5- D;k okn vkns'k 2 fu;e 2 O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk dsa vUrxZr pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA 6- D;k okn esa uxj fodkl U;kl] jktLFkku ljdkj Hkksith ukFkkor ds okfjlku rFkk uxj ikfydk vko';d i{kdkj gS vkSj okn vko';d i{kdkjksa dk lekos'k u gksus ls pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA 7- D;k okn vof/k ckf/kr gSA 8- D;k izfroknh&2 vuko';d i{kdkj gSA 8&,& D;k ;g oknxzLr Hkwfe d'f"k Hkwfe gksus ds dkj.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk Jo.k ;ksX; ugha gSA " 4. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record and submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff by deciding the issue Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8-A & 9 in favour of the plaintiff and the issue Nos.1 & 2 against the plaintiff. 5. The learned counsel Mr. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record and submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff by deciding the issue Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8-A & 9 in favour of the plaintiff and the issue Nos.1 & 2 against the plaintiff. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Anil Mehta for the appellant has sought to submit that the trial court had thoroughly mis-appreciated the evidence on record more particularly the documents at Exhibit/1 and Exhibits/15 & 16. According to him, Major Thakur Raghuvir Singh Ji, had become the owner of the disputed property in view of the exchange deed Exhibit/15 and the agreement deed Exhibit/16, and the plaintiff had become the owner of the said property by virtue of the sale deed at Exhibit/1 executed by the power of attorney holder of Major Thakur Raghuvir Singh Ji in favour of the original-plaintiff Jhaman Das. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma Alias Nacharamma, (2008) 15 SCC 150 , he has submitted that the plaintiff being the owner of the disputed property, his suit for possession without seeking declaration was maintainable. Mr. Mehta placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors. v. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo, (2009) 5 SCC 713 , submitted that a registered sale deed of sale carries presumption that the transaction was a genuine one, and that in the instant case, the appellant-plaintiff having become the owner of the disputed property by virtue of the registered sale deed at Exhibit/1 and the said sale deed having not teen challenged by anybody, the appellant-plaintiff was deemed to have valid title. Taking the Court to the evidence led by the appellant-plaintiff before the trial court, he submitted that the earlier suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the respondents-defendants which was decreed by the court, ex parte as the respondent had chosen to remain absent in the said proceedings, and therefore the findings recorded by the court in the said suit were binding to the respondents-defendants. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. and another v. Bajranag Lal, 2014 AIR SCW 2058 , to submit that the party has to plead the case and produce sufficient evidence to substantiate the submissions made in the pleadings, and that in the instant case in absence of any pleading challenging the authority of the Urban Improvement Board or of the power of attorney holder to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the court should not permit the respondents to raise such issue in this appeal. 6. However, the learned counsel Mr. B.L. Agarwal for the respondents vehemently submitted that the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for permanent injunction and for recovery of possession of the disputed property, without seeking declaration that he was the owner, was not maintainable in the eye of law, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033 , and decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Muddasani Sarojana v. Muddasani Venkat Narsaiah & Ors., AIR 2007 Andhra Pradesh 50. He also submitted that Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur had no authority to execute the documents at Exhibits/15 & 16, in favour of Thakur Raghuvir Singhji, and therefore the very title of the Major Thakur Raghuvir Singh Ji being defective, his alleged power of attorney holder also had no authority to sell the disputed property to the plaintiff. Mr. Agarwal further submitted that the respondents-defendants were in possession of the disputed property since last many years, and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was barred by Limitation in view of Article 64 of the Limitation Act. Referring to the map Exhibit/1-A annexed to the document Exhibit/1, he submitted that there was a well in the centre of the disputed property which was being used by the public at large, and therefore also the appellant could not be said to be the exclusive owner of the disputed property. Lastly he submitted that the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was also barred by the provisions contained in Order 2, Rule 2 and was bad for misjoinder of the parties, and that the trial court had committed an error in deciding the issue Nos. 3 to 8-A against the respondents-defendants. 7. Lastly he submitted that the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was also barred by the provisions contained in Order 2, Rule 2 and was bad for misjoinder of the parties, and that the trial court had committed an error in deciding the issue Nos. 3 to 8-A against the respondents-defendants. 7. In view of the above, the questions that fall for consideration before this Court are as to whether the trial court had committed an error in deciding the issue Nos.1 & 2 in favour of the respondents-defendants, and whether the appellant-plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the suit. 8. To recapitulate the facts, it may be stated that the original appellant-plaintiff Jhamandas had purchased the suit property as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, vide the registered sale deed dated 22.09.1967 (Exhibit/1) from Major Thakur Raghuvir Singh Ji, through his power of attorney holder Azhar Hussain son of Shri Shabuddin Ji. As stated in the said sale deed, Major Thakur Raghuvir Singh Ji had become the owner of the said property as per the Exchange deed dated 22.01.1954 (Exhibit/15), which was registered on 10.03.1954. It appears from the said exchange deed that the Government of Rajasthan and Major Thakur Rahuvir Singh Ji had agreed to exchange their properties described therein, and accordingly the said deed was executed and also got registered. There being some mistake in the dimensions mentioned in the said exchange deed, a further document was also executed as per Exhibit/16. The said correction deed was also got registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur as transpiring from the document at Exhibit/16 itself. 9. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said documents were ever challenged by any party or by the Government of Rajasthan at any point of time, or set-aside by the court in any proceedings. Though, it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Agarwal for the respondents-defendants that the Government of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Urban Improvement Board, Jaipur had no authority to execute the documents produced at Exhibits/15 & 16, and therefore Major Thakur Raghuvir Singh Ji also had no authority to sell the disputed property, the said submission has no force. The said documents having been duly signed by the parties and also registered one, the presumption would be that they were valid documents executed in favour of Thakur Raghuvir Singhji. The said documents having been duly signed by the parties and also registered one, the presumption would be that they were valid documents executed in favour of Thakur Raghuvir Singhji. As held by the Apex Court in case of Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors. v. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo (supra), if the execution of the sale deed is proved by the plaintiff, the onus would be on the defendant to prove that the deed was not executed and that it was a sham transaction. 10. It was also submitted by Mr. Agarwal that the power of attorney holder of Major Thakur Raghuvir Singh Ji had no authority to execute the sale deed Exhibit/1 in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, however, the said submission also has no legs to stand, inasmuch as no such pleading was pleaded by the defendants in the written statement, and no such issue in that regard was framed by the trial court. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Anil Mehta for the appellant, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. v. Bajranag Lal (supra), the party has to plead his case and produce sufficient evidence to substantiate his pleadings. The court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas, if the same were not pleaded in the pleadings. Even otherwise, in the instant case, the respondents-defendants had failed to prove as to how the power of attorney holder of Major Thakur Raghuvir Singh Ji had no authority to execute the sale deed Exhibit/1 in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, or as to how Major Thakur Raghuvir Singh Ji had not become the owner of the disputed property. As against that the appellant-plaintiff by producing cogent documentary evidence and by examining himself and other witnesses, had proved that he was the owner of the suit property by virtue of the documents at Exhibit/1, Exhibit/15 and Exhibit/16. The Court, therefore is of the opinion that the trial court had committed an error in mis-appreciating the said evidence on record and in deciding the issue No.1 against the appellant-plaintiff. 11. The submissions of the learned counsel Mr. The Court, therefore is of the opinion that the trial court had committed an error in mis-appreciating the said evidence on record and in deciding the issue No.1 against the appellant-plaintiff. 11. The submissions of the learned counsel Mr. Agarwal for the respondents that the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for possession and for permanent injunction without seeking declaration as regards the ownership of the disputed property was not maintainable, also cannot be accepted in view of the legal position settled by the Apex Court, in case of Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma Alias Nacharamma (supra)in which it has been categorically held in para 16 as under:- "16. The plaintiff had purchased the suit land under registered sale deed dated 10-4-1957. The defendant did not claim title with reference to any document but claimed to have perfected title by adverse possession. A mere claim by the defendant that he had perfected his title by adverse possession, does not mean that a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and that the plaintiff who is the owner, should file a suit for declaration of title. Unless the defendant raises a serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff, there is no need to file a suit for declaration. The plaintiff had title and she only wanted possession and therefore a suit for possession was maintainable. We are fortified in this view by the following observations of this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. buchi Reddy. (SCC p.604 para 14 ) "14. We may, however, clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration." 12. In the instant case also the appellant-plaintiff having purchased the suit property under registered sale deed, had become the owner thereof and merely because some cloud was raised without substance over the appellant's title by the respondents-defendants, the appellant was not required to file the suit for declaration. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant-plaintiff had earlier filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking permanent injunction, as the defendants were causing obstruction to the plaintiff in making construction over the disputed property, and that the said suit was decreed by the court of Munsiff Jaipur City, as per the judgment & decree dated 18.12.1973. The decree had become final. The said suit was decreed by the court after holding that the appellant-plaintiff was the owner of the disputed property, and therefore was entitled to the permanent injunction. The said findings having become final, the same was binding to the respondents-defendants also. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the trial court had also committed an error in deciding the issue No.2 against the appellant-plaintiff. 13. The other issues have been decided by the trial court in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, in respect of which the respondents-defendants have not even bothered to file the cross objections. During the course of arguments also, the learned counsel for the respondents had not much pressed for the said issues except issue No.7. 13. The other issues have been decided by the trial court in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, in respect of which the respondents-defendants have not even bothered to file the cross objections. During the course of arguments also, the learned counsel for the respondents had not much pressed for the said issues except issue No.7. According to him, the appellant-plaintiff had not stated in the plaint as to when he was dispossessed from the suit property, and since the respondents-defendants more particularly the respondent No.4 was in possession of the disputed property for more than 12 years, the suit of the plaintiff was barred in view of Article 64 of the Limitation Act. In this regard, it is required to be mentioned that it was proved by the appellant-plaintiff by examining himself, and other witnesses that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 claiming themselves to be the President & Secretary of the respondent No.3-Samiti, which had no existence, had illegally put the respondent No.4 in possession and had tried to encroach upon the disputed property illegally, and therefore the suit was filed in the year 1980. The respondents-defendants had failed to produce any evidence to show as to how and since when they were in possession of the disputed property. The burden of proving the issue that suit of the appellant was barred by limitation, being on the respondents, and the respondents having failed to discharge the said burden, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was barred by limitation cannot be accepted. The learned counsel Mr. Mehta for the appellant had not pressed for the issue No.9, pertaining to the mesne-profits, and therefore there is no need to decide the said issue. 14. In view of the above, it is held that the trial court had erroneously recorded the findings on issue Nos.1 & 2 against the appellant-plaintiff, and had committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff being the owner of the disputed property, was entitled to recover the possession thereof from the respondents-defendants. The respondents-defendants, therefore are directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed property to the appellant-plaintiff forthwith. The judgment & decree dated 30.09.1991 passed by the trial court therefore is set-aside. The first appeal stands allowed accordingly. The decree be drawn accordingly.Appeal Allowed. *******