JUDGMENT : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. 1. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 527 of 1989 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 23.08.1999, the unsuccessful defendants preferred this Appeal. 2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. Undisputed facts are as follows: One Mohd. Abdulla was the original owner of the suit plot bearing No. 15 admeasuring 260 Square yards and other plots in Survey No. 7 of Abdullah Layout, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad, under sanctioned layout vide permit No. 259/E/1960-61, dated 12.09.1960. He died on 29.01.1964 leaving behind him vast properties, his mother Sakina Bee, first wife Ameena Bee, one daughter through her by name Razia Begum, second wife Jubeda Begum and three sons and three daughters through her. Sakina Bee through her GPA Holder MA Habib filed OS No. 20 of 1967 on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Secunderabad, against the wives and children of Mohd. Abdulla for administering the estate of the deceased; determination of her share and separate possession thereon. Jubeda Bee, the second wife filed IA No. 1139 of 1968 under Order 32 Rule 15 and Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of next friend or court guardian on the ground that Sakina Bee is of unsound mind. The Court, by order dated 25.03.1969, held that since Sakina Bee is unable to protect the properties because of mental infirmity; she should be represented by the next friend. The said suit was dismissed on 10.07.1970 as settled out of court. Sakina Bee died in 1972. 3.1. M.A. Habeeb, GPA Holder of Sakina Bee filed OS No. 313 of 1972 on the file of the V Asst. Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, against Jubeda Bee and others for perpetual injunction in respect of the property including the present suit schedule property. During pendency of the said suit, MA Habeed died and his Legal Representatives prosecuted the suit. The learned Judge, by order dated 10.03.1977, returned the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the plaint was not re-presented. Jubeda Bee and others filed OS No. 353 of 1980 (renumbered as OS No. 455 of 1983) on the file of the Addl. During pendency of the said suit, MA Habeed died and his Legal Representatives prosecuted the suit. The learned Judge, by order dated 10.03.1977, returned the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the plaint was not re-presented. Jubeda Bee and others filed OS No. 353 of 1980 (renumbered as OS No. 455 of 1983) on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, against the Legal Representatives of MA Habib seeking declaration of two gift deeds dated 08.11.1971 and 09.11.1971 alleged to have been executed in favour of MA Habeeb by Sakina Bee as void and not binding on plaintiffs and for perpetual injunction. The learned Judge holding that the said gift deeds are vitiated by undue influence, dismissed the suit since relief of possession is not sought, by judgment dated 24.03.1988. 3.2. Ameena Bee, the first wife of late Md. Abdulla and her daughter filed OS No. 101 of 1976 against Jubeda Bee and her children for partition. The suit ended in compromise and Jubeda Bee and children were given some properties including the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property by a registered sale deed dated 10.04.1978 from Jubeda Bee and her children. The 1 st defendant obtained registered sale deed dated 25.03.1977 in respect of same suit schedule property and filed OS No. 1515 of 1978 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad for perpetual injunction against plaintiff and obtained decree on 22.07.1982. AS No. 388 of 1982 and the Second Appeal preferred by plaintiff were dismissed on 18.07.1983 and 22.06.1984, respectively. 3.3. The 2nd defendant obtained a registered sale deed dated 18.08.1988 from the 1 st defendant in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property in an extent of 130 Sq.Yds. 4. On behalf of plaintiffs, PWs. 1 to 3 and on behalf of defendants, DWs. 1 to 5 were examined. Exs.A-1 to A-24 and Exs. B-1 to B-23 were marked on their respective behalf. 5. The Trial Court rightly opined that the entire controversy relates to the title revolves around the question as to who among Sakeena Bee, mother of the original owner Abdulla or the second wife and children of the said Abdulla succeed the suit schedule property. Exs.A-1 to A-24 and Exs. B-1 to B-23 were marked on their respective behalf. 5. The Trial Court rightly opined that the entire controversy relates to the title revolves around the question as to who among Sakeena Bee, mother of the original owner Abdulla or the second wife and children of the said Abdulla succeed the suit schedule property. The Trial Court held that there is a cause of action to institute the suit; valuation and court fee paid are sufficient; and the suit is not barred by limitation. These findings are not disputed. 6. The Trial Court in its well-considered judgment evaluating the voluminous evidence - oral and documentary, decreed the suit. PW-1 deposed about purchase of suit schedule property from Jubeda Bee and her children under Ex.A1, which was devolved to her by virtue of compromise decree in OS No. 101 of 1976. Evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 coupled with recitals of Ex.A-1 and terms and conditions of the compromise (Ex.A-22) go to establish that subsequent to death of Md. Abdullah and his mother Sakina Bee, remaining legal representatives of original owner affected compromise and in the said compromise, suit schedule property fell to the share of Jubeda Bee and her children from whom it was purchased under Ex.A1. Ex.A1 was attacked on the grounds of insufficiency of consideration; absence of delivery of possession; and Sakina Bee or her legal representatives are not parties to the said compromise. Md. Abdulla died in 1964 and his mother Sakia Bee died in 1972. Then the first wife of Abdulla and daughter filed OS No. 101 of 1976 against the second wife and children of Abdulla, which ended in compromise. Hence adding of Sakina Bee, who is no more by that time, to the compromise does not arise. Further OS No. 101 of 1976 is between the remaining Legal Representatives of the deceased original owner; compromise under Ex.A22 is therefore, a valid one. It is settled law that plea of no consideration or sufficiency of consideration is not available to a stranger. Hence this ground of attack was turned down. So also as per Clause-3 of Ex. A1 sale deed, there is implied delivery of possession. The fact of plaintiff obtaining sanctioned plan permit from the Municipal Corporation for construction under Ex.A2 dated 11.5.1978 itself is proof of delivery of possession. 7. Hence this ground of attack was turned down. So also as per Clause-3 of Ex. A1 sale deed, there is implied delivery of possession. The fact of plaintiff obtaining sanctioned plan permit from the Municipal Corporation for construction under Ex.A2 dated 11.5.1978 itself is proof of delivery of possession. 7. The 1 st defendant claims title to the suit schedule property under Ex. B-1 sale deed 25.03.1977 purchased from Sajida Begum. On the strength of this, he filed OS No. 1515 of 1978 and obtained temporary injunction. Under the guise of this injunction, he forcibly entered into the suit schedule land and dispossessed plaintiff. Recitals of Ex.B-1 do not disclose the source of title to its vendor. It is their case that Sakina Begum got the suit schedule property to her share and she gifted the same under Ex. B-3 registered gift deed dated 09.11.1971 to M.A. Habeeb, who sold it to Sajida Begum under Ex.B-2 dated 15.11.1985. 8. As stated above, Sakina Bee through her GPA Holder MA Habeeb filed OS No. 20 of 1967 on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad against the wives and children of Mohd. Abdulla for administering the estate of the deceased; determination of her share and separate possession thereon. Jubeda Bee, the second wife filed IA No. 1139 of 1968 under Order 32 Rule 15 and Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of next friend or court guardian on the ground that Sakina Bee is of unsound mind. The Court by order dated 25.03.1969 held that since Sakina Bee is unable to protect the properties because of mental infirmity, she should be represented by her next friend. The said suit was dismissed on 10.07.1970 as settled out of court. Therefore, the Court below held that the so-called gift deed is not a valid one. Further in OS No. 353 of 1980 (renumbered as OS No. 455 of 1983) filed by the vendors of the plaintiff, the Court held that there was no earlier partition and even if there was a partition, it was void and that gift deeds including Ex. B-3 is vitiated by undue influence. In view of the findings of the Court in OS No. 455 of 1983 that gift deeds including Ex. B-3 is vitiated by undue influence. In view of the findings of the Court in OS No. 455 of 1983 that gift deeds including Ex. B-3 are vitiated by undue influence, which became final, the said M.A. Habeeb had no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property to convey the same to Sajida Begum, vendor of the 1 st defendant. 9. In the result, the trial court decreed the suit declaring the ownership and title of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and directed defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property within the time frame fixed. 10. 9. In the result, the trial court decreed the suit declaring the ownership and title of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and directed defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property within the time frame fixed. 10. This Appeal is filed on the following grounds: i) the court below erred in appreciating the pleadings and evidence; ii) it failed to notice the factual and legal infirmities in the case of the plaintiff; iii) it failed to appreciate that the findings in OS No. 1515 of 1978 cannot be reopened as they are barred by principle of res judicata; iv) it committed error in construing and interpreting Ex.A-19; v) it failed to appreciate the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 CPC; vi) it failed to appreciate Ex.B22 dated 09.07.1970 executed by Sakina Begum, Jubeda Begum and her children; vii) it erred in construing that dismissal of OS No. 20 of 1967 in terms of settlement outside the court is not a proof that Sakina Begum got any part of the suit scheduled property; viii) it committed error in appreciating that even in the absence of OS No. 29/1967, as the mother of the deceased Sakina Begum was entitled to 1/6th share in the Matruka under the Muslim Law; ix) it erred in thinking that there is no finality to the findings in OS No. 455 of 1983 in view of the fact that the said suit is only dismissed; x) it failed to appreciate that when the said suit was dismissed the findings would have no value; xi) it failed to look that irrespective of result of OS No. 313 of 1972, pre-existing title of MA Habeeb and his successors are in no way affected; xii) it erred in holding that since the suit was filed after the death of Sakina Begum, it was not necessary to implead anybody as a party on her behalf; xiii) it erred in holding that vendors' vendor and its vendor has no right, title and interest in the property; xiv) it erred in holding that because of dismissal of OS No. 455 of 1983, the findings therein are binding though the defendant was not a party; xv) it erred in holding that the suit is not barred by limitation; xvi) it committed error in appreciating rival claims. 11. Sri B. Ganu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. 11. Sri B. Ganu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for appellants contends that OS No. 527 of 1989, which was decreed, against which the Appeal was filed, is the second round of litigation as plaintiff suffered decree in OS No. 1515 of 1978 dated 23.07.1982 (Exs. B4 & B5) which was filed by appellant (D-1) for permanent injunction. The said decree was upheld in AS No. 388 of 1982 (Exs. B6 & B7). It is contended that the trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that Sakin Begum was insane and the gift deeds by her (Ex. B3) and another were declared to be void in judgment in OS No. 455 of 1983 (Ex.A21). The said assumption of the trial Court is contrary to the evidence and based on conjectures and surmises. In Ex.A21, no relief was granted to Jubeda Begum since she was not in possession of the property. 11.1. It is further contended that judgment in OS No. 101 of 1976 (Ex. A22) is not binding on Mohd. Abdul Habib and his Legal Representatives as they are not party to it. The present suit is barred by limitation. Though it was observed that Gift Deeds in questions were executed under undue influence, the relief of declaration of the same as void was denied. The observations of the trial Court that though OS No. 455 of 1983 (Ex. A21) was dismissed, findings, which were against the legal heirs of Mohd. Abdul having become final, they shall be binding upon defendant No.1, is per se perverse. 11.2. For this proposition, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Ramesh Chandra v. Shiv Charan Dass , AIR 1991 SC 264 , Gendalal v. Raghunath (HC of MP - MANU/MP/1035/2006) and M/s Ram Mohan v. M/s Ganesar Ginning Co Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (1) L.W. 143 . Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contends that placing reliance on the findings in OS No. 455 of 1983 is absolutely uncalled for and not permissible in law. 11.3. It is further contended that findings of fact as to possession of the 1st defendant of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of OS No. 1515 of 1978 (Ex.B-4) which was upheld in AS No. 388 of 1982 (Ex.B-6) are binding on respondent/plaintiff under the principle of estoppel. 11.3. It is further contended that findings of fact as to possession of the 1st defendant of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of OS No. 1515 of 1978 (Ex.B-4) which was upheld in AS No. 388 of 1982 (Ex.B-6) are binding on respondent/plaintiff under the principle of estoppel. For this, learned counsel places reliance on Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v. Ram Niwas , AIR 2008 SC 2187 , RVS Vara Prasad v. V. Ramdas , 2014 (1) ALD 188 . 11.4. It is also contended that purchase under Ex.A1 is not a bona fide one, there are no covenants as to the delivery of possession by the vendor Jubeda Begum to the purchaser since the vendors are not in possession of property. The property is shown to have been sold for less than the registration value without any explanation for same. The fact that plaintiff was dispossessed after obtaining injunction in OS No. 1515 of 1978 is totally disproved. Learned Senior Counsel prays for allowing the appeal. 12. Per contra, Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents contends that Sakin Bee through Mohd. Abdulla, GPA Holder filed OS No. 20 of 1967 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad against both the wives of the original owner for administering the estate of the deceased; determination of her share and separate possession thereon. In that, Jubeda Bee, the 2 nd wife of the deceased, filed IA No. 1139 of 1968 in OS No. 20 of 1967 under Order 32 Rules 15 and Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC. seeking appointment of next friend or court guardian for the persona and property of Sakina bee on the ground that Sakina Bee is of unsound mind. The Court, by order dated 25.03.1969 (Ex. A19), opined that though there is no conclusive evidence of insanity, by virtue of old age, mental weakness, inability to walk and express herself either by speech or by gesture, her inability to move is a mental infirmity and unable to protect her interest in the suit and it is therefore, necessary that she should be represented by her next friend to protect her interest in the suit. Eventually, the said suit was dismissed. The findings of the Court about the unsound mind of Sakina Bee attained finality. Eventually, the said suit was dismissed. The findings of the Court about the unsound mind of Sakina Bee attained finality. Undisputedly, the title to the appellant flow from the Gift Deeds executed by the said Sakina Bee in a state of unsound mind and under undue influence. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the said Gift Deeds are invalid. 12.1. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for defendants relied upon the following decisions: Sajjanashin Sayed MD. B.E. Dr (D) by LRs v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, (2000) 3 SCC 350 Williams v. Lourdusamy , (2008) 5 SCC 647 G. Narayan Reddy v P. Narayan Reddy , 2016 (3) ALT 12 Bansilal Ratwa v. Laxminarayana , 1969 (APLJ) 408 Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnaiah , (1998) 3 SCC 331 Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar Uthirasomasundareswaram Temple v. Sri Rajanga Asari , AIR 1965 Madras 355 13. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, it is clear that Mohd. Abdullah was the original owner of 6,000 Square yards in Survey No. 7, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad. He obtained a layout dividing the land into Plots 1 to 24. He died on 28.01.1964 leaving behind him his mother Sakina Bee, first wife Ameena and second wife Jubeda Begum, as his Legal Heirs. Sakina Bee died on 09.06.1972. Ameena filed OS No. 101 of 1976 on the file of the IV Addl. Judge, Hyderabad, for partition against Jubeda, the second wife. This suit was compromised. Jubeda and her children got plots 1 to 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 24 of the layout. They sold Plot No. 15 to plaintiff. After the death of Mohd. Abdulla on 28.01.1964, Sakina mother of Abdulla through her brother Mohd. Abdul Habib filed OS No. 20 of 1967 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, for administration of the estate of Abdulla. In that suit, Jubeda Begum filed IA No. 1139 of /1968 for appointment of next friend to take care of Sakina. OS No. 20 of 1967 was dismissed as settled out of Court. Sakina Bee executed two gift deeds dated 08.11.1971 and 09.11.1971 in favour of Mohd. Abdul Habeeb by which the property including suit schedule plot was gifted. Sakina Bee died on 09.06.1972. Mohd. OS No. 20 of 1967 was dismissed as settled out of Court. Sakina Bee executed two gift deeds dated 08.11.1971 and 09.11.1971 in favour of Mohd. Abdul Habeeb by which the property including suit schedule plot was gifted. Sakina Bee died on 09.06.1972. Mohd. Abdul Habib and others filed OS No. 313 of 1972 on the file of the V Additional Judge, Hyderabad against Jubeda Begum for injunction. The plaint was returned and it was not re-presented. Habeeb sold the suit plot to Mrs. Sajeeda on 15.11.1975. Mrs. Sajeeda executed a sale deed dated 25.03.1977 in favour of Defendant No.1. He filed OS No. 1515 of 1978 on the file of the I Additional Judge, Secunderabad against Habib for perpetual injunction. This suit was decreed on 22.07.1982. It was confirmed in AS No. 388 of 1982 dated 18.07.1983 and Second Appeal No. 312 of 1984 dated 22.06.1984. Jubeda Begum and her children filed OS No. 455 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad against the heirs of Mohd. Abdul Habeeb for a declaration that gift deeds executed by Sakina Bee in favour of Mohd. Abdul Habeeb as null and void. This suit was dismissed on technical grounds. However, finding was recorded that gift deeds are vitiated since Sakina Bee was insane at that time. Defendant No.1 sold 130 Square Yards out of the suit plot to Defendant No.2. 14. The very foundation for the defendants to claim title over the suit schedule property flows from the gift deeds executed by Sakina Bee in favour of Mohd. Abdul Habib. The contention of plaintiffs is Sakina Bee was in unsound mind at the time of execution of the so-called gift deeds and hence, they are void. OS No. 455 of 1983 was filed for declaring the said gift deeds as null and void. The Court, in the said suit, has categorically, by its order dated 25.03.1969 (Ex. A19) opined that though there is no conclusive evidence of insanity, by virtue of old age, mental weakness, inability to walk and express herself either by speech or by gesture, her inability to move is a mental infirmity and unable to protect her interest in the suit and it is therefore, necessary that she should be represented by the next friend to protect her interest in the suit. Eventually, the said suit was dismissed. Eventually, the said suit was dismissed. The findings of the Court about the unsound mind of Sakina Bee are not challenged/carried in Appeal and thus, they attained finality. On this sole ground, it can be held that defendants/appellants are having defective title over the suit property. 15. For the aforementioned analysis, this Court finds no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the Court below. The Appeal is therefore, dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in O.S. No. 527 of 1989, dated 23.08.1999. No costs. 16. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.