JUDGMENT : This appeal against appellate Court’s decree filed under Section 100 C.P.C. assails the judgment dated 21.01.1999 of learned District Judge, Chittoor in A.S.No.53 of 1994. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge agreed with the trial Court findings and dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment dated 23.06.1994 of learned II Additional District Munsif, Chittoor in O.S.No.418 of 1985. The said O.S.No.418 of 1985 was a suit filed by Sri R.Periaswamy Nattar seeking a declaration of his title over the suit schedule property and for delivery of possession of the same to him from the defendants. After due trial, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Thus, as against concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal is preferred. 2. Sri R.Periaswamy Nattar was the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.418 of 1985. He preferred A.S.No.53 of 1994 and while the appeal was pending, he died and his legal representatives were brought on record and were arrayed as appellant Nos.2 to 8. Out of them Sri P.Lokanatham is one of the appellants and he was shown as third appellant in A.S.No.53 of 1994. It is that P.Lokanatham who alone filed this second appeal. 3. On 02.12.1999 a learned Judge of this Court admitted the second appeal on the formulation of following substantial questions of law : “(a) Whether the Court below arrived at the correct conclusion that the 3rd Defendant took the important role and influenced the 4th Respondent and both of them with the help of the Plaintiff/Appellant brought into existence the Sale Deed Exhibit A.3 collusively. (b) Whether both Courts below that came to the conclusion that Exhibit A.3 is a collusive document and whether said finding is proper or not? (c) The Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court come to a wrong conclusion in dismissing the suit and appeal, the Courts below ought to have taken into consideration that D.2 i.e. Donee have not accepted the gift property covered by Exhibit A.2 and they have not acted upon. (d) The Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A5. (e) The Courts below committed error of Law in dismissing the suit as well as appeal, the Courts below ought to have decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff on the endorsement of the 4th Defendant. (d) The Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A5. (e) The Courts below committed error of Law in dismissing the suit as well as appeal, the Courts below ought to have decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff on the endorsement of the 4th Defendant. (f) The Appellate Court ought to have relied on Exhibit A.3 produced by the Appellant in support of his case. (g) Both the Courts below went wrong in dismissing the suit having found that the Exhibit A.3 is collusive document, which is a sham and nominal document.” 4. Sri J.Ugranarasimha, the learned counsel for appellant submitted arguments. 5. Despite notices being served, none appeared for respondents. 6. The following facts are required to be noticed: A tiled house bearing Door No.9-4-53 in Gurrappa Naidu Street, Chittoor Town of Chittoor District is the property in dispute. Under a registered sale deed dated 21.08.1940/Ex.A.1 Smt. Muniammal/defendant No.4 purchased that property and became its absolute owner and continued to hold possession of the property. She was blessed with two daughters. First daughter is Smt. Kuppamma. She died in the year 1983. She was blessed with a daughter by name Ponnammal/defendant No.2 and she was married to Sri Rajendra Nattar/defendant No.1. The other daughter of Muniammal/defendant No.4 is Sarojammal/defendant No.3. 7. The entire controversy arose because of multiple registered documents executed by the original owner Smt. Muniammal/defendant No.4. The following are the chronological events. 1. She had executed Ex.A.2-registered settlement deed dated 07.02.1955 settling the plaint schedule property in favour of both of her daughters. 2. Thereafter she executed Ex.A.4-registered settlement deed dated 28.01.1985 under which this very plaint schedule property was exclusively conferred on one of her daughters Smt. Sarojammal/defendant No.3. 3. Thereafter this very original owner Muniammal executed Ex.A.3-registered sale deed dated 29.03.1985 in favour of plaintiff. 8. In the context of the above referred circumstances, plaintiff filed the original suit seeking declaration of title. He pleaded that the earlier settlement deeds were sham and nominal and they were obtained from defendant No.4 making her to believe that she was executing Will and that these settlements were never acted upon since the very original owner/defendant No.4 continued to hold possession of the property. For her medical needs she offered to sell and the plaintiff on paying valid sale consideration purchased the property. For her medical needs she offered to sell and the plaintiff on paying valid sale consideration purchased the property. The vendor gave symbolic possession of the property to the plaintiff. Subsequently, despite demands as the defendants have not been vacating the property, he sought declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property. 9. Defendant No.4 the original owner of the property offered a written statement with a prayer to decree the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff. Rest of the defendants filed their written statements and questioned the contentions of the plaint and the maintainability of the suit. Learned trial Court settled the following issues and additional issues for trial: 1) Is the plaintiff entitled to the declaration prayed for by him? 2) Is the plaintiff entitled to possession of the plaint schedule property? 3) To what relief? Additional Issues: 1) Whether the 4th defendant is a collusive defendant with the plaintiff or not? 2) Whether the registered sale deed dt. 29.3.1985 executed by D.4 in favour of plaintiff is a sham and nominal one and brought into existence to defraud and defeat the rights accrued on D.2 and her brothers by virtue of the decree in O.S.No.252/85 on the file of P.D.M. Court, Chittoor? 3) To what relief? 10. For plaintiff, PW.1 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. For defendants, DW.1 and DW.2 testified and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. 11. On considering the entire evidence and considering the submissions made on both sides, the learned trial Court found no case for the plaintiff and answered all the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff questioned the same and the first appellate Court considered all the submissions and on merits it agreed with all the findings of the trial Court and dismissed A.S.No.53 of 1994. It is in the context of these undisputed facts, the above substantial questions of law came up for consideration. 12. The title claim of the appellant rested on Ex.A.3-registered sale deed dated 29.03.1985. That was executed by defendant No.4 in favour of the plaintiff. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. Thus, a valid sale takes place only when the document was executed by that person who holds ownership over the property. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. Thus, a valid sale takes place only when the document was executed by that person who holds ownership over the property. By the time Smt. Muniammal executed Ex.A.3-registered sale deed whether the ownership was with her or not was the point for consideration. Both the Courts below considered this aspect and held that long prior to execution of Ex.A.3-registered sale deed Muniammal lost her ownership over the property by virtue of executing original settlement deed dated 07.02.1955/Ex.A.2. In the process they also held that Ex.A.4-settlement deed dated 28. 01.1985 obtained by defendant No.2 was invalid since the executant Muniammal had no title with her. Since the executant of Ex.A.3 sale deed did not have title with her, her statement in Ex.A.3-sale deed that she was conveying her title is against facts and law. Thus, Ex.A.3 did not confer any title on the plaintiff. Since it did not confer title on plaintiff the declaration of title he sought could not be granted and Courts below rightly recognized it and refused to declare his title. Since he did not have title he could not be granted the consequential relief of recovery of possession of property. Therefore, there is nothing to find fault with the impugned judgments. 13. The contention of the original owner/defendant No.4 agreed for decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff serves no purpose since she had nothing to do with the property anymore and her support to plaintiff could not lend any strength to the plaintiff’s case. That the question whether Ex.A.3-sale deed in favour of plaintiff was collusively obtained or not really does not survive for consideration. On evidence Courts below recorded that it was a collusive transaction as that sale deed emerged just a few days after defendant No.3 obtaining Ex.A.4 and further defendant No.3 and plaintiff are intimately related to each other. Even if Ex.A.3-sale deed is not a product of collusion, it makes no difference as this document could not confer title to the plaintiff. Even if Ex.A.3-sale deed is not a product of collusion, it makes no difference as this document could not confer title to the plaintiff. In fact, plaintiff could not be said to be a bona fide purchaser also since in his evidence as PW.1 during the course of cross-examination he admitted that only after perusal of Exs.A.2 and A.4-settlement deeds he purchased this property. Thus, he very well knew that the executant of sale deed had no title with her, yet he was prepared to obtain Ex.A.3-sale deed from her. In the light of this it remains so solid that the collusion of plaintiff in obtaining Ex.A.3-sale deed is very apparent. Plaintiff failed to adduce acceptable evidence to think that defendant No.4 executed successive settlement deeds thinking that they were her Wills. Defendant No.4 did not even enter the witness box to suspect the settlement deeds. The plaintiff was not present when those settlement deeds were made. Thus, contentions raised are imaginary lacking any factual basis. The substantial questions of law that were formulated really do not indicate any substantial question of law raised between parties. No interference is needed with the impugned judgments. All the points are answered against the appellant. 14. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 21.01.1999 of learned District Judge, Chittoor in A.S.No.53 of 1994 stands confirmed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.