JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. This Appeal has been preferred by Defendant No.2 – Kaushal Kishore Awasthi under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/2014, whereby the learned trial Court has decreed the Plaintiff's claim. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court below. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff – Manoharlal Golchha instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and possession with regard to the property in question bearing Kh.No.736/02 area 0.05 acres constructed with a Kachha tiled house over 500 sq.ft. of it, described in plaint Schedule – 'A' while seeking further relief of declaration to the effect that the registered deed of sale dated 29.10.2004 executed by Defendant No.1 – Hastimal Surana in favour of Defendant No.2 – Kaushal Kishore Awasthi be declared as null and void and not binding upon him. According to the Plaintiff, he purchased the land in question by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 22.06.2004 executed by Defendant No.1 – Hastimal Surana for a consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- while putting him in possession thereof. Further contention of him is that since construction materials of said Defendant were lying there at the relevant point of time, therefore, he took some time for handing over its possession. It is pleaded further that when it was not handed over to him despite of the said assurance, a demand notice dated 11.02.2005 was, therefore, issued to him and, it is pleaded further that he applied for mutation of the land in question based upon the alleged sale deed dated 22.06.2004 before the Tahsildar Dantewada where it was rejected on 05.08.2005 on the ground that the name of Defendant No.2 – Kaushal Kishore Awasthi has already been directed to be recorded vide order dated 30.12.2004 based upon the registered deed of sale dated 29.10.2004, which was executed in his favour, giving rise to the institution of the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 11.12.2007. 3. 3. Defendant No.1, while contesting the claim, has raised a counter claim on 15.01.2014 questioning the alleged deed of sale 22.06.2004 alleging inter alia that the Plaintiff has succeeded to get the alleged registered deed of sale with the connivance of Deputy Registrar, Jagdalpur even without paying the entire sale consideration to him. It is pleaded further that the possession of the suit land had already been handed over to Defendant No.2 – Kaushal Kishore Awasthi in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 10.04.1999 and had obtained the entire sale consideration from him on 21.05.2004, and therefore, the Plaintiff has no right over the property in question based upon the alleged registered deed of sale dated 22.06.2004, which deserves to be declared as null and void. 4. The Defendant No.2 has contested the claim on the ground that he was put in possession of the suit land in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 10.04.1999 and had paid the entire sale consideration of it on 21.05.2004 and was thus a bona fide purchaser of the suit land. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 22.06.2004 (Ex.P.1), the Plaintiff has acquired his valid right, title and interest upon it and observed further that Defendant No.1, after alienation of the property in question, was not at all entitled to realienate the same to Defendant No.2 Kaushal Kishore Awasthi by virtue of executing another deed of sale dated 29.10.2004 (Ex.P.3). It held further that the registered deed of sale (Ex.P.1) executed in favour of the Plaintiff by Defendant No.1 was questioned by him on 16.01.2014, much beyond the prescribed period of limitation even without valuing its counter claim properly. In consequence, the trial Court has decreed the Plaintiff's claim, which has been questioned by Defendant No.2 by way of this appeal. 6. Shri Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Defendant No.2 submits that the finding of the trial Court upholding the registered deed of sale dated 22.06.2004 (Ex.P.1), purported to have been executed in favour of the Plaintiff by Defendant No.1, is apparently contrary to law. It, however, ought to have seen that Defendant No.2 had already purchased the same by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 10.04.1999 and was put in possession thereof. It, however, ought to have seen that Defendant No.2 had already purchased the same by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 10.04.1999 and was put in possession thereof. Further contention of him is that since Defendant No.2 was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land, therefore, the registered deed of sale executed in his favour on 29.10.2004 (Ex.P.3) ought to have been upheld. During the pendency of appeal, he moved an application seeking production of certain documentary evidence on record as required under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and also moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in his written statement by claiming counter claim to the effect that the registered deed of sale, dated 22.06.2004 be declared as null and void. 7. On the other hand, Shri P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/Plaintiff, while placing his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Thota Ganga Laxmi and another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 15 SCC 207 , has supported the judgment and decree under appeal as passed by the trial Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. (i) First of all, I would like to consider the application filed by the Appellant/Defendant No.2 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. A bare perusal of the documents attached with it would show that the said Defendant wanted to produce the statement of transactions made through the State Bank of India in order to show that the sale consideration was made by him to Defendant No.1 on different dates and sought to produce further the reports of Revenue Authority along with the photographs in order to show that the Plaintiff is not in possession over the land in question. However, all these documents are not at all relevant or necessary for consideration of the issue involved herein. I am, therefore, not inclined to allow this application, which is accordingly rejected. 9. However, all these documents are not at all relevant or necessary for consideration of the issue involved herein. I am, therefore, not inclined to allow this application, which is accordingly rejected. 9. (ii) In so far as the amendment application is concerned, the same is also liable to be rejected as the authenticity of the registered deed of sale, dated 22.06.2004 executed in favour of Plaintiff has already been upheld by the trial Court while refusing to counter claim as set up by Defendant No.1 and, in absence of questioning the same by the said Defendant, the authenticity of the same has attained its finality, and therefore, the counter claim as sought to be set up by Defendant No.2 under the garb of this amendment application cannot be allowed. Even otherwise, being a stranger to the alleged sale, Defendant No.2 has no right whatsoever to question the authenticity of it. In view of the said background, I am not inclined to allow this application as well, which is accordingly rejected. 10. Perusal of the record would show that Defendant No.1 – Hastimal Surana was admittedly the owner of the property in question, as described in plaint Schedule – 'A' and by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 22.06.2004 (Ex.P.1), it was sold by him to the Plaintiff – Manoharlal Golchha, who has thus acquired his valid interest upon it. It appears that the execution of the said registered deed of sale (Ex.P.1) was not disputed by him (Hastimal Surana) and in fact, it was questioned on the ground that the sale consideration of it has not been paid to him, however, no action for the reasons best known to him was taken within the period of three years in order to get it set aside. In view thereof, the right, title and interest of him has been divested with the Plaintiff and despite the alienation of the property in question as such, the said Defendant (Hastimal Surana) has re-alienated the same without any authority to Defendant No.2 – Kaushal Kishore Awasthi by virtue of executing another sale deed dated 29.10.2004 (Ex.P.3), who in turn, based upon it, succeeded to get the revenue papers recorded in his name vide order dated 30.12.2004 (Ex.P.7) passed in Revenue Case No.2/A-6/2004-05 by the Tahsildar Dantewada. Since the property in question was already alienated by Defendant No.1 – Hastimal Surana to the Plaintiff by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 22.06.2004 (Ex.P.1), therefore, he had no alienable interest whatsoever to re-sale the same to Defendant No.2 on the strength of the said sale executed on 29.10.2004 (Ex.P.3). It is to be noted at this juncture the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Thota Ganga Laxmi and another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra) wherein it has been held at para 4, which reads as under:- “4. In our opinion, there was no need for the appellants to approach the civil court as the said cancellation deed dated 4-8-2005 as well as registration of the same was wholly void and non est and can be ignored altogether. For illustration, if A transfers a piece of land to B by a registered sale deed, then, if it is not disputed that A had the title to the land, that title passes to B on the registration of the sale deed (retrospectively from the date of the execution of the same) and B then becomes the owner of the land. If A wants to subsequently get that sale deed cancelled, he has to file a civil suit for cancellation or else he can request B to sell the land back to A but by no stretch of imagination, can a cancellation deed be executed or registered. This is unheard of in law.” 11. In the light of the aforesaid principles, it is apparent that no right, title or interest would, therefore, accrue upon him (Kaushal Kishore Awasthi) and the order of mutation dated 30.12.2004 (Ex.P.5) would not affect the interest of the Plaintiff, as he has already acquired his interest over the land in question under the registered deed of sale dated 22.06.2004 (Ex.P.1). 12. That apart, as observed earlier that the judgment and decree as passed by the trial Court upholding due execution, attestation and validity of a registered deed of sale dated 22.06.2004 has not been questioned by the said vendor (Hastimal Surana), therefore, in absence of an appeal preferred by him, the present appellant has no right to assail the same. In view thereof, the appellant would not get any interest over the property in question on the strength of the sale executed subsequently on 29.10.2004 (Ex.P.3). In view thereof, the appellant would not get any interest over the property in question on the strength of the sale executed subsequently on 29.10.2004 (Ex.P.3). 13. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Court below decreeing the Plaintiff's claim based upon the registered deed of sale dated 22.06.2004 (Ex.P.1). 14. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A decree be drawn accordingly.