JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order dt.11.11.2019 passed in I.A.719 of 2019 in O.S.No.444 of 2019 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. 2. The appellants herein are legal representatives of the deceased-1st plaintiff in O.S.No.444 of 2019 and the 2nd plaintiff therein. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs 3. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that sale Deeds bearing Doc.Nos.371/1961 dt.15.06.1961 (Ex.P5), Doc. No. 161/1965 dt.15.02.1965 (Ex.P6) and Doc.No.295/1969 dt.16.04.1969 (Ex.P7) are null and void and not binding on them, and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property apart from giving a direction to the Revenue Officer to incorporate their names in the Revenue Records. 4. The suit schedule property is an extent of Acs.1.26 gts. and Acs.1.27 gts totaling to Acs.3.13 gts. in Survey Nos.1/A and 1/AA situate at Sathamrai Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as the’ suit schedule property’). 5. In the plaint, it is the contention of plaintiffs that they are brothers; that the entire Sathamrai Village was ex Jagir village and the individual cultivators of the respective lands in Jagir Village were deemed to be pattadars of the land under their occupation and possession; that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were in long standing possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as can be seen from the relevant Revenue Records; when the then Government of Andhra Pradesh denied the title of the family of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, the father of the plaintiffs along with his four brothers filed O.S.No.93 of 1964 before the Munsif Magistrate (West and South), Ranga Reddy District against the Government of Andhra Pradesh for declaration of title and consequent injunction; the said suit was decreed on 31.08.1996 (Ex.P4 is judgment and decree therein) by the said Court; and no appeal was filed against the said judgment and it attained finality. 6. According to the plaintiffs, the ownership of Babi Reddy, who is the grandfather of plaintiffs and absolute owner and possessor, has to be accepted since his name is reflected as pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property in the Kasara Pahanies and other documents. 7. 6. According to the plaintiffs, the ownership of Babi Reddy, who is the grandfather of plaintiffs and absolute owner and possessor, has to be accepted since his name is reflected as pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property in the Kasara Pahanies and other documents. 7. The plaintiffs contended that during the lifetime of their father there was a partition affected between himself and his brothers, and the suit schedule property fell to the share of their father; that their father died in 1986 or 1987 and they succeeded to the same equally and they continued to be in uninterrupted peaceful possession thereof. 8. They further contended that during the lifetime of the father of plaintiffs Late Papi Reddy, one Golla Jangamma, who was a poor widow rendered services to him by working as a house servant and in recognition of such services, he allowed her to stay in the house situated adjacent to the suit schedule property and later executed in her favor a nominal sale deed Ex.P5 dt.15.06.1961 in respect of House bearing Old No. 1-20 and new No.1-36 situate at Sathamrai Village adjacent to the suit schedule property in her favour without receiving any sale consideration; that the suit schedule property was never alienated to the said Golla Jangamma by the father of the plaintiffs; that the said Golla Jangamma is the mother of the 1st defendant and she had no title or possession to the suit schedule property; yet she appears to have sold it under a registered sale deed Ex.P6 dt.15.02.1965 in favour of Jayanthi Bhai Patel by receiving consideration; and that she had no authority to execute the said registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. 9. It is contended that the said Jayanthi Bai Patel and his wife executed a sale deed in favour of Santha Ben Purushotham Patel on Ex.P7 dt.16.04.1969 and this document also did not create any right in the said property as the vendor did not get absolute ownership of the suit schedule property from Golla Jangamma who never had any title to it. They further contended that a person cannot convey a better title than he himself had, and when Golla Jangamma had no title or possession, she cannot convey a better title either to Jayanthi Bai Patel or to the subsequent purchaser, viz., Santha Ben Purushotam Patel. They further contended that a person cannot convey a better title than he himself had, and when Golla Jangamma had no title or possession, she cannot convey a better title either to Jayanthi Bai Patel or to the subsequent purchaser, viz., Santha Ben Purushotam Patel. Reliance is also made to certain orders passed for mutation and it is contended that only Civil Court has to decide the issue of title. 10. They further contended that they had filed O.S.No.356 of 1994 before the Munsif Magistrate (West and South) for injunction against Smt. Shanta Ben Purushotam Patel and another, but it was dismissed for default. According to them, there is no title issue raised in the said suit and its dismissal will not come in the way of filing the instant suit. 11. It is also contended that one Suresh Kumar Bung, Advocate, caused a publication alleging that his clients entered into Agreement of Sale with defendant Nos.16 and 17 for purchasing the suit schedule property along with other lands and paid lot of money, and that defendant nos.16 and 17, suppressing this agreement, were making efforts to alienate the lands in favour of third-parties. He cautioned third parties from entering into any transaction with defendant nos.16 and 17 with respect to the suit schedule property. 12. Plaintiffs contend that defendant Nos.16 and 17 were claiming title under Shanta Ben Purushotham Patel who had allegedly purchased the property through Ex.P7 on 16.04.1969 and they had sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant no.18 under a registered Sale Deed Ex.P10 dt.30.07.2016 and the latter is proceeding to construct a marriage function hall in the suit schedule property. 13. It is also contended that defendant no.18 had applied for permission for construction and had executed even mortgage deed Ex.P11 in favour of the Metropolitan Commissioner and Gram Panchayat on 04.01.2018 after dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property in December, 2017, and therefore, the above suit was filed. I.A.No.719 of 2019 14. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.719 of 2019 for grant of interim injunction restraining defendant No.18 and his agents from altering or changing the nature of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. 15. The plaintiffs reiterated the contents of the plaint in the said I.A. The counter affidavit filed by Respondent no.18/defendant no.18 in I.A.No.719 of 2019 16. 15. The plaintiffs reiterated the contents of the plaint in the said I.A. The counter affidavit filed by Respondent no.18/defendant no.18 in I.A.No.719 of 2019 16. Counter-affidavit was filed by defendant no.18 in I.A.No.719 of 2019. 17. It firstly contended that the plaintiffs had got another suit O.S.No.586 of 2019 filed before the XIII Addition District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the suit schedule property claiming that the plaintiffs therein were legal heirs of P. Jangaiah, 1st defendant in the suit, for similar relief of declaration, cancellation and injunction, but they failed to obtain ex parte injunction, and so they are not entitled to relief of temporary injunction in the instant suit. 18. It is next contended that the suit is barred by limitation and it did not disclose any cause of action. 19. According to the 18th respondent, the plaintiffs were aware of the sale Deeds Ex.P6 dt.15.02.1965, Ex.P7 dt.16.04.1969 also and mutation proceedings Ex.R7 and Ex.R8 dt.24.09.1993 which was confirmed in appeal and their suit O.S.No.356 of 1994 against the predecessors in title of the 18th respondent was dismissed for default but they waited till April, 2019 to file the instant suit. 20. According to the 18th respondent, the plaintiffs had actual and constructive notice of the registered sale deeds under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the suit for declaration of title and possession after 58 years is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. 21. It is also contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties such as parties to sale deeds bearing Ex.P5 to P7 etc. 22. Next, it is contended that the plaintiffs were aware of the constructions made by the 18th respondent in the previous 18 months, that they had acquiesced to the construction of Marriage Hall and Cellar, Ground and First Floors, and so they cannot get the relief of injunction as prayed for. 23. It is contended that 18th defendant purchased the plaint schedule property from Vinod Bhai (16th defendant) and others under a registered Sale Deed Ex.P9 dt.28.07.2016 and its name was also mutated in the Record of Rights by the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal on 01.04.2017 vide Ex.R7 and that it is a bona fide purchaser for value. 24. The 18th defendant then traced the title to Golla Jangamma and the sale deed executed by her on Ex.P6 dt.15.02.1965. 25. 24. The 18th defendant then traced the title to Golla Jangamma and the sale deed executed by her on Ex.P6 dt.15.02.1965. 25. It is alleged that the 18th respondent had completed construction of a Marriage Hall consisting of cellar, ground and two upper floors and certain finishing works alone were pending. 26. Reliance is also placed on dismissal of O.S.No.356 of 1994 filed by the plaintiffs’ father earlier and certain orders passed by the Revenue authorities against the plaintiffs. Order dt.11-11-2019 in I.A.No.719 of 2019 in O.S.No.444 of 2019 27. In the said I.A., the plaintiffs filed Exs.P-1 to P-13 and Respondent no.18/Defendant no.18 filed Exs.R-1 to R-16. 28. By order dt.11-11-2019, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.719 of 2019. 29. It held that plaintiffs themselves had admitted that they were dispossessed in December, 2017; that 18th respondent was proceeding with the construction of marriage hall, shed etc., in the suit schedule properties since October, 2018; and therefore as on the date of filing of suit i.e. 03-04-2019, they were not in possession of the suit schedule property. 30. It then observed that Exs.P-1 to P-3 pahanis did not establish the title of the plaintiffs since they were Revenue records. It then referred to Ex.P-4 judgment in O.S.No.93 of 1964 said to have been filed by the father of the plaintiffs along with other persons and stated that it refers to land in Sy.Nos.1 to 7 (old), 1, 16, 18, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34 and 35 (new) of Saatamrai village, but the schedule was not given to ascertain what is the extent , what is survey number and their details were not clear. 31. It then referred to Ex.P-5 certified copy of the sale deed executed by Papireddy, father of plaintiffs, in favour of Golla Jangamma with regard to H.No.1-20 and 1-36, and observed that the schedule of the house was not mentioned and the extent of the house to be sold, is also not mentioned. 32. Then it referred to Ex.P-6 sale deed executed by Golla Jangamma in favour of Jayanthi Bhai Patel for the land in Sy.No.1 to the extent of Ac.3.13 gts and stated that one Papireddy had attested the said document as a witness. 33. 32. Then it referred to Ex.P-6 sale deed executed by Golla Jangamma in favour of Jayanthi Bhai Patel for the land in Sy.No.1 to the extent of Ac.3.13 gts and stated that one Papireddy had attested the said document as a witness. 33. It then concluded that by implication, the said Paireddy sold the land in Sy.No.1 to the extent Ac.3.13 gts in favour of Golla Jangamma under Ex.P-5; thereafter Ex.P-7 sale deed was executed on 16-04-1969 by Jayanti Bhai Patel and Smt.Sharada Devi in favour of Smt.Shanti Ben Purushottam Patel with regard land of Ac.3.13 gts. It also referred to Ex.P-8 sale deed executed by Polamoni Jangaiah @ Golla Jangaiah and 13 others in favour of Smt.Dr.K.Lalitha Reddy in respect of this land and other sale deed Ex.P-9 executed by Vinod Bhai Patel in favour of Mr.Mukesh Purushottam Bhai Patel and 6 others in respect of the schedule property. It therefore concluded that there is no document to show the right, title or interest of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. 34. It then referred to the sale deed Ex.R-6 executed in favour of R-18 and the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Shamshabad under Ex.R-7 and other proceedings of Revenue authorities apart from Ex.R-10 Technical approval accorded by the HMDA and ExR-11 permission granted by the Gram Panchayat Sathamrai to 18th respondent for construction of marriage hall and then concluded that 18th respondent might have raised construction in the suit schedule property also. 35. It then held that unless and until the plaintiffs establish their right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, they are not entitled to any injunction. It observed that plaintiffs could not establish that Golla Jangamma had not sold away the plaint schedule property and that the documents on record particularly sale deeds executed by her show that she sold the same and house in 1965 and 1963 through registered documents which were in favour of the respondents. The present appeal 36. Assailing the same, this appeal is filed. 37. Heard Sri K.Gopal, learned counsel appellants/2nd plaintiff and legal heirs of 1st plaintiff, who have been impleaded vide order dt.03-07- 2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in this appeal, and Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, leaned counsel for 18th respondent. 38. It has to be noted that the father of plaintiffs is Papireddy. Assailing the same, this appeal is filed. 37. Heard Sri K.Gopal, learned counsel appellants/2nd plaintiff and legal heirs of 1st plaintiff, who have been impleaded vide order dt.03-07- 2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in this appeal, and Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, leaned counsel for 18th respondent. 38. It has to be noted that the father of plaintiffs is Papireddy. Papi Reddy’s father is Babi Reddy. The names of the plainitiffs is recorded in Exs.P-1 to P-3 pahanis for the years 1986-87, 1990-91 and 1994-95. 39. Ex.P-4 is the judgment dt.31-08-1966 in O.S.No.93 of 1964 obtained by the father of plaintiffs Papireddy and his brothers against the State Government wherein their suit filed for declaration of their title that they are the possessors and occupants of the land in Sy.No.1 of Sathamrai village and in another survey numbers and for perpetual injunction restraining the State Government from dispossessing them, was decreed. 40. Admittedly the 18th respondent is claiming title through Golla Jangamma. 41. According to plaintiffs, the said Gollama Jangamma was a poor lady, who was rendering services to the father and working as house servant and in recognition of her services, he allowed her to stay in the house bearing No.1-36 of Sathamrai village, adjacent to the suit schedule property and during his lifetime executed a sale deed dt.15-06-1961 (Ex.P-5) in her favour. According to respondents, under this sale deed, not only was H.No.1-36 was sold to her, but also the suit schedule property. 42. A perusal of Ex.P-1 shows that it recites about sale only of the bearing old No.1-20 and new No.1-36 within the specified boundaries for Rs.400/- to Smt.Golla Jangamma and there is no reference in Ex.P-1 to land much less the Ac.3.13 gts in Sy.No.1, which is the suit schedule property. At more than one place in the said document, there is only reference to house which was sold and nothing else. Prima facie in our opinion, therefore, only the said house was sold to her and not the suit schedule property. 43. It appears that Jangamma later sold under a sale deed Ex.P6 dt.15- 02-1965 Ac.3.13 gts in Sy.No.1 of Sathamrai village which is the suit schedule property to one Sri Jayanthi Bhai Patel. Prima facie in our opinion, therefore, only the said house was sold to her and not the suit schedule property. 43. It appears that Jangamma later sold under a sale deed Ex.P6 dt.15- 02-1965 Ac.3.13 gts in Sy.No.1 of Sathamrai village which is the suit schedule property to one Sri Jayanthi Bhai Patel. When she purchased under Ex.P-1 sale deed only house No.1-36 from the father of the plaintiffs and not the suit schedule property prima facie , she could not have sold Ac.3.13 gts in Sy.No.1 of Sathamrai village to Jayanthi Bhai Patel under Ex.P-6 sale deed dt.15-02-1965. This is because it is settled law that one cannot confer title to property which one did not possess. Consequently, the subsequent sale deeds Ex.P-7 dt.16-04-1969 and other documents ultimately resulting in alleged purchase by 18th respondent under Ex.P9 =Ex.R6 did not convey any title to the suit schedule property of Ac.3-13 gts in Sy.No.1 in favour of 18th respondent. The Court below appears to have lost sight of this aspect in the impugned order. 44. When a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is filed, a defendant can oppose the suit either on the basis of his title or on the basis of adverse possession. 45. In the instant case, the defence of 18th respondent is not based on adverse possession of himself or his predecessors but he is basing his title on Exs.P-5, P-6 and P-9 and other sale deeds. 46. In C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai, (2007) 14 SCC 183 the Supreme Court explained the change in law brought about by the Limitation Act,1963 in the following terms: “16. The law of limitation relating to the suit for possession has undergone a drastic change. In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to aver and plead that he not only has title over the property but also has been in possession of the same for a period of more than 12 years. However, if the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming title over the suit property in terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, burden would be on the defendant to prove that he has acquired title by adverse possession. 17. In Mohd. However, if the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming title over the suit property in terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, burden would be on the defendant to prove that he has acquired title by adverse possession. 17. In Mohd. Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, (2004) 1 SCC 271 it was held: (SCC p. 277, para 20) “20. … By reason of the Limitation Act, 1963 the legal position as was obtaining under the old Act underwent a change. In a suit governed by Article 65 of the 1963 Limitation Act, the plaintiff will succeed if he proves his title and it would no longer be necessary for him to prove, unlike in a suit governed by Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, that he was in possession within 12 years preceding the filing of the suit. On the contrary, it would be for the defendant so to prove if he wants to defeat the plaintiff’s claim to establish his title by adverse possession.” 47. The plea of bar of limitation of the suit is also prima-facie untenable in view of fact that suit is for recovery of possession as a consequence of declaration of plaintiff’s title and so, Art.58 has no application. (C. Natrajan (supra)). 48. In Boya Pareshappa and Ors. vs. G. Raghavendra Nine and Ors., (2014) 4ALT 55 in respect of declaratory suits pertaining to immovable property period of limitation is governed by Articles 64 and 65, but not under Article 58 of the Act. 49. So prima-facie the plea of bar of limitation raised by the 18th defendant appears to be untenable. 50. He cannot also rely upon dismissal of O.S.No.366 of 1984 filed by the plaintiffs against Shanta Ben Patel and others for injunction, which suit admittedly got dismissed for default. 51. Therefore prima facie it appears that there was no transfer of title by Papi Reddy, father of plaintiffs to Golla Jayamma of the suit schedule property and consequently to the 18th respondent by the transferees from her. 52. We are also of the opinion, any adjudication by Revenue Officials also cannot be relied upon by 18th respondent because they are not competent to decide title prima facie. 53. 52. We are also of the opinion, any adjudication by Revenue Officials also cannot be relied upon by 18th respondent because they are not competent to decide title prima facie. 53. Since it is admitted by plaintiffs that 18th respondent is in possession of the plaint schedule property, that it had also obtained permission from Gram Panchayat on 25-04-2018 for construction of marriage hall in an area of 4908 sq. mts out of 13081.63 sq. mts in the suit schedule property, and since the relief claimed in I.A.No.719 of 2019 is to restrain the 18th respondent from altering or changing the nature of the suit schedule property, and since 18th respondent claims to have completed construction of the Marriage Hall prior thereto, we direct that pending disposal of the suit, 18th respondent shall not alter or change the nature of the suit schedule property other than 4908 sq. mts in which he had constructed the Marriage Hall. 54. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs. 55. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal, shall stand closed.