ORDER : K. Sujana, J. 1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.09.2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller cum XII Junior Civil Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner/third party, filed E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007 under Order XXI Rules 97 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 23(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1960, seeking declaration of ownership and possession over a property bearing Municipal No.1-8-430/14, situated at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, comprising a ground, first, and second floor, with a total extent of approximately 160.35 square yards. The claim arose in the context of an eviction execution petition (E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007) filed by the legal heirs of a previous owner. The petitioner contended that he had lawfully purchased the said property vide registered sale deed dated 21.07.2004 from one Smt Shashikala, who was represented by her registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, Sri Baja Maddileti/respondent No.6. The sale was based on an earlier agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 18.06.2004. It was further contended that the vacant possession was handed over to the petitioner at the time of the sale, and he had since then been in uninterrupted possession. It was stated that he had mutated his name in municipal records, paid taxes, and obtained a housing loan by mortgaging the property, thereby, affirming his ownership. However, it came to light that an earlier registered sale deed dated 16.07.1988 (Document No.3961 of 1988) had been executed in favor of one Smt G. Sarojana/respondent No.1 for an extent of 80 square yards. 3. It was the specific contention of petitioner that the 1988 deed was only a nominal transaction executed to secure a loan, and no possession had been delivered under that sale. Subsequently, Sarojana had executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 27.04.1991 in favor of Smt Baja Ramulamma, authorizing her to deal with the property, and based on this GPA, a ratification deed dated 22.09.2007 was executed confirming the sale in favor of the petitioner and conveying the title of Sarojana to him. Subsequently, Sarojana had executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 27.04.1991 in favor of Smt Baja Ramulamma, authorizing her to deal with the property, and based on this GPA, a ratification deed dated 22.09.2007 was executed confirming the sale in favor of the petitioner and conveying the title of Sarojana to him. The petitioner alleged that respondents No.2 to 5 had filed E.P., and obtained ex parte orders behind his back, suppressing material facts and creating a false narrative. He asserted that the execution of the eviction order was illegal and sought protection under Rule 23(7) of the Rent Control Act. It was further stated that the ex parte decree had become infructuous as the alleged tenant - Respondent No. 6 had vacated long before the decree was passed. 4. The respondents in EA., contested the petition, contending that the 1988 sale deed in favor of Smt G. Sarojana was still valid and had not been cancelled, and that neither the petitioner, nor his vendors, had any legal right to sell the property in 2004 as it had already been sold to Sarojana. The existence of any valid GPA by Sarojana in favor of Ramulamma was denied and the validity of the ratification deed was challenged as being collusive and self-serving. Further, that the petitioner was not a bona fide purchaser and that his title documents were fabricated to overcome defects in the chain of title. 5. The Principal Rent Controller recorded evidence from both parties. The petitioner was examined as PW1, and documents including the sale deed, GPA, ratification deed, tax notices, and municipal records were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 were marked. The Principal Rent Controller noted that both parties relied on registered sale deeds—one from 1988 and another from 2004—creating a direct conflict of title. Upon analyzing the evidence, the Principal Rent Controller concluded that the Rent Control Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate complex questions of title, and emphasized that under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, when there are multiple competing transfers, the earlier in time prevails, and since the 1988 sale deed was registered first, and had not been lawfully cancelled, the subsequent sale in 2004 could not confer better title. The Principal Rent Controller opined that the petitioner had also not taken any legal steps to challenge or cancel the earlier sale deed, nor had he initiated action against his vendors for misrepresentation, and that the ratification deed relied upon by the petitioner was executed only after the ex parte eviction decree had been passed, and in addition, the petitioner had not notified or disputed the rights of Respondent No.1 at the relevant time, further weakening his claim. 6. The Principal Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 13.09.2013 held that while the petitioner claimed uninterrupted possession and submitted certain documents, his title to the property remained under a cloud and could not be conclusively established within the limited jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. Further, that the petition raised substantial questions regarding ownership and title, which must be determined by a competent Civil Court. Accordingly, E.A.No.21 of 2012 was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of his rights. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed. 7. Heard Sri A.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri TCD Shekhar, learned counsel for respondents. 8. Learned counsel for revision petitioner, submitted that that the dismissal of the E.A., filed by revision petitioner is contrary to the law, weight of evidence, and probabilities of the case, and that the Rent Controller erred in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground of jurisdiction. He contended that the Rent Controller has the authority to decide on the objections raised by the petitioner who is in possession of the property, under Rule 23(7) of the Rent Controller Rules, and that the said rule empowers the Rent Controller to address such objections and even reject the E.P., if necessary. He lamented that the E.A., was dismissed without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence presented in the case. He relied on the observations made by the Rent Control Appellate Court in I.A.No.950 of 2007 in R.A.No.251 of 2007 dated 02-04-2009, whereunder, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an application under Rule 23(7) of the Rules, which would imply that the Rent Controller failed to take these observations into account, which further supports the case of petitioner. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007. 9. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and contended that there are no irregularities or illegalities in the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 and that the E.A., filed by petitioner was rightly dismissed, directing the petitioner to approach competent civil Court. He further contended that the 1988 sale deed in favor of Smt G. Sarojana remains valid and un-canceled, which in fact would render any subsequent sale of the property by the petitioner or his vendors in 2004 illegitimate. He asserted that the said contention is based on the principle that a prior sale deed takes precedence over any subsequent transactions involving the same property. He asserted that Sarojana's prior purchase of the property nullifies any claims of ownership or transfer rights by the petitioner or his vendors, and that this assertion is grounded in the idea that once a property has been sold, the seller no longer has the right to transfer ownership to another party. That apart, he disputed in relation to existence of a valid General Power of Attorney (GPA) from Sarojana to Ramulamma, and divulged the ratification deed as collusive and self-serving, implying lack of authenticity in the transactions. He averred that the GPA and ratification deed were created to manipulate the property's ownership, rather than reflecting a genuine transfer of rights. He reiterated that petitioner does not qualify as a bona fide purchaser due to the questionable nature of his title documents, and that the documents appear to be fabricated to rectify defects in the chain of title. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss this revision petition stating that there are no illegalities in impugned order dated 13.09.2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007. 10. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss this revision petition stating that there are no illegalities in impugned order dated 13.09.2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007. 10. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on perusing the material placed on record, it is to be noted that the petitioner had purchased the entire property, of which the petition schedule property forms a part, under a registered sale deed dated 21.07.2004 (Ex.P1) executed by Smt Shashikala, represented by her Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA holder, Sri Baja Maddiletti/Respondent No.6, contending that possession was delivered to him pursuant to the said transaction, and that he has been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property ever since, having mutated his name in municipal records and paid property taxes regularly. To substantiate the same, reliance was placed upon Exs.P1 to P8, including the Sale Deed (Ex.P1), Agreement of Sale cum GPA (Ex.P2), Irrevocable GPA executed by Smt G. Sarojana in favour of Baja Ramulamma (Ex.P3), the Ratification Deed executed by Ramulamma (Ex.P4), the Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated 16.07.1988 (Ex.P5), and municipal tax notices (Exs.P6 to P8). 11. It is the specific contention of petitioner that the earlier registered sale deed dated 16.07.1988 (Ex.P5) executed by Smt Shashikala and Sri Baja Maddiletti in favour of Smt Sarojana/respondent No.1, to an extent of 80 square yards, was a sham and nominal transaction, intended merely to secure a loan and not to effectuate a transfer of title or possession. Further, that no possession was ever delivered to the first respondent pursuant to Ex.P5, and that respondent No.1 never exercised any ownership rights over the property. Furthermore, that the execution of an irrevocable GPA by Smt Sarojana in favour of Baja Ramulamma(Ex.P3) and the subsequent Ratification Deed dated 22.09.2007 (Ex.P4) executed by Ramulamma in favour of the petitioner reinforce the claim that the 1988 transaction was not acted upon and that the petitioner validly derived title through the 2004 sale deed. However, on meticulously perusing the evidence, including the cross-examination of PW1, it becomes evident that the petitioner was aware of existence of the prior registered sale deed dated 16.07.1988 in favour of respondent No.1. However, on meticulously perusing the evidence, including the cross-examination of PW1, it becomes evident that the petitioner was aware of existence of the prior registered sale deed dated 16.07.1988 in favour of respondent No.1. That apart, PW1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he had obtained a certified copy of the 1988 sale deed and learned that the respondent No.1 had become the absolute owner and possessor of the property covered under Ex.P5. He further stated that he was informed by Smt Shashikala and Sri Baja Maddiletti that the said transaction was nominal and executed to secure a loan. However, this assertion remains uncorroborated by any independent documentary evidence. 12. Significantly, despite having knowledge of the earlier transaction, the petitioner admittedly did not initiate any steps to get the 1988 sale deed cancelled or declared null and void by any competent Court. The petitioner neither issued any legal notice to respondent No.1 disputing her title, nor initiated proceedings against Smt Shashikala or Sri Baja Maddiletti for having conveyed property which they had already alienated. 13. That apart, though the petitioner contends to have relied on the Ratification Deed dated 22.09.2007 (Ex.P4), it is noteworthy that the same was executed after the ex parte eviction order dated 30.08.2007 in R.C. No.182 of 2007. Moreover, the said Ratification Deed was executed by Baja Ramulamma, who is admittedly not a party to the sale transaction of petitioner, under Ex.P1, thus rendering its legal efficacy questionable. 14. At this juncture, it is significant to note that the sale deed dated 16.07.1988 (Ex.P5) is a registered and regular sale deed, and as per the settled principle embodied under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, when two competing claims are based on registered sale deeds, the doctrine qui prior est tempore potior est jure (he who is earlier in time is stronger in law) shall apply. It is a well-established principle that once a valid transfer is made, the transferor cannot confer any right or title upon another person in derogation of the earlier transfer. 15. Reverting to the facts of case on hand, no doubt, it follows that Smt Shashikala and Sri Baja Maddiletti had no subsisting right to convey title under Ex.P1 in favour of the petitioner in 2004, having already conveyed the property to respondent No.1 under Ex.P5 in 1988. 15. Reverting to the facts of case on hand, no doubt, it follows that Smt Shashikala and Sri Baja Maddiletti had no subsisting right to convey title under Ex.P1 in favour of the petitioner in 2004, having already conveyed the property to respondent No.1 under Ex.P5 in 1988. Further, the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the obstruction to execution proceedings was raised in good faith. Though he examined himself as PW1 and a third party as PW2, the evidence of PW2 does not inspire confidence, as he disclaimed knowledge of the affidavit and admitted that he had not given any instructions for its preparation. No independent or reliable evidence has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the 1988 sale deed was never acted upon or that the transaction was merely a security for a loan. 16. In addition, it is imperative to record that the petitioner filed E.A., under Rule 23(7) of the A.P. Rent Control Rules, and a perusal of the said provision makes it clear that the Rent Controller is required to conduct a summary enquiry to ascertain whether the resistance or obstruction to execution of the eviction decree is bona fide. The said provision does not empower the Rent Controller to adjudicate upon complex questions of title, and in the present case, both the petitioner and the respondent no.1 assert rival claims of ownership based on separate registered sale deeds, as such, the Principal Rent Controller dismissed the petition observing that the petitioner is entitled to avail appropriate remedy available to him under law before the competent civil Court to decide the title over the property. However, instead of availing the said remedy, the petitioner filed this revision petition challenging the said order. That apart, even prior to this, when the petitioner filed petition under Order I Rule 10 of CPC., the appellate Court advised the petitioner to approach competent civil Court, but instead, he filed this revision petition. Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm view that there are no irregularities or illegalities in the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007. There are no valid grounds in this revision petition to entertain the same, warranting interference of this Court, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. There are no valid grounds in this revision petition to entertain the same, warranting interference of this Court, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.