JUDGMENT : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 780 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R District at Saroornagar, dated04-8-1998. 2. The parties as arrayed in the suit are referred to in the same manner in this Appeal. 3. Appellants herein are plaintiffs in the suit which was filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction of agriculture lands admeasuring Acs. 09-19 guntas in Survey No. 103/5 situated at Shamshabad Village, Ranga Reddy District. The said property herein is referred to as ‘suit schedule property’. The trial Court dismissed the above suit by judgment and decree dated 04-08-1998., which is impugned in this Appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are: Plaintiffs claim that their respective fathers late Yenga Reddy Venkat Reddy, S/o Sai Reddy and Late Yanga Reddy Narayan Reddy, S/o Sai Reddy have jointly purchased suit schedule lands from Late Kuchireddy Chenna Reddy, S/o Bal Reddy who is the husband of Defendant No. 1 and Father of Defendants 2 to 4 and Kuchireddy Narayanan Reddy, S/o Bal Reddy who is father of Defendant Nos. 5 to 8. Both of them are the natural brothers and are Pattedars and possessors of Suit Schedule Lands. The respective fathers of Plaintiffs have jointly purchased from the husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendants 2 to 4 suit schedule property by paying the sale consideration of Rs 600/- on 27-12-1960 and got possession of said land on the same day. The predecessors of defendants executed a simple sale deed/ Bainama in favour of fathers of plaintiffs on a stamp paper on 27-12-1960. The revenue authorities recognizing rights of Plaintiff father and after their death had recorded the names of Plaintiffs in the revenue records more specifically in Pahanies under the possession column. It is the further case of Plaintiffs that they are in physical possession of suit schedule lands from the date of purchase without interruption from anybody. While the matter stood thus, in December 1995, Defendants tried to interfere with the possession of Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is the further case of Plaintiffs that they are in physical possession of suit schedule lands from the date of purchase without interruption from anybody. While the matter stood thus, in December 1995, Defendants tried to interfere with the possession of Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In view of the said interference, mediation has been done in the presence of village vendors wherein, it was decided that Plaintiffs have to pay Rupees Five Hundred only to Defendant Nos.1 and 5 to 8 and the same was received by said Defendants and having received the said amount, Defendants are obligated to cooperate with Plaintiffs for getting their names recorded in the revenue records as owners and possessors of the suit schedule lands. However, defendants have once again tried to interfere and disturb possession of suit schedule property on 16-12-1996. In view of the same, Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction. 4.1. Pursuant to service of summons/ notices in the suit, Defendants filed their appearance and contested the suit. The contention of Defendants is that the husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendants did not alienate suit schedule property and the claim of Plaintiffs is false and denied. Defendants in categorical terms have disputed the simple sale deed dated 27.12.1960. In other words, Defendants disputed alienation of suit schedule Property under Bainama dated 27-12-1960 for sale consideration of Rs. 600/- and defendants are also denying and disputing that they have tried to disturb the physical possession of suit schedule property contending that taking advantage of illegal entries and possession column of Pahanies, Plaintiffs have put up a wrong claim on the Defendant to knock away the property of Defendants and it is Plaintiffs who have tried to dispossess Defendants. 4.2. Defendants, in categorical terms, denied payment of Rs.500/- by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs by colluding with revenue officials got illegal entries in the Pahanies and those entries are the basis for filing present suit so also on the created and fabricated Bainama/Simple sale deed dated 27-12-1960. Defendants further assert that their names were entered in revenue records as Pattedars and succession was granted and their names were recorded in the Pahanies for 1985-86 to 1994-95 as Pattedars and possessors. Defendants further assert that their names were entered in revenue records as Pattedars and succession was granted and their names were recorded in the Pahanies for 1985-86 to 1994-95 as Pattedars and possessors. From 1983 onwards, defendants did not cultivate suit lands due to financial constraints and since they are absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule Property, no injunction can be granted. 5. Based on the said pleadings, the following issues are framed: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 2) To what relief? Additional issues are also farmed which are as under: 1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owners and possessors of the' suit schedule property? 3) Whether suit sale deed is a forged document and is hit by Section 47 of A.P. (Telangana) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Revenue Act 1950 and a void transaction? 6. During the course of trial, oral evidence was led by the parties wherein PWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of Plaintiffs and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B1-B17 were marked. 7. The trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit by Judgment and Decree under Appeal. 8. The present Appeal is filed on the ground that trial Court misinterpreted Section 47 of the A.P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture, Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) and thereby committed an error in dismissing the suit. 9. Another ground taken by Plaintiffs in Appeal is that the impugned judgment and decree is totally based on application of Section 47 of the Act. The finding of trial court that subject sale transaction is hit by Section 47 of the Act is against the settled principals of law. Thus, Section 47 is not a bar for selling the agriculture lands without prior permission of Tahsildar. The trial Court has also overlooked Exs. Al to A10 with regard to possession of suit scheduled property. 10. This Court having considered the pleadings, documents on record and oral evidence of witnesses and considering the contents of impugned judgment, frames the following issues for adjudication of present appeal. 1) Whether the simple sale deed dated 27-12-1960 vide Ex. A11 is valid to grant the relief of declaration in favour of Plaintiffs. 2) Whether Exs. 10. This Court having considered the pleadings, documents on record and oral evidence of witnesses and considering the contents of impugned judgment, frames the following issues for adjudication of present appeal. 1) Whether the simple sale deed dated 27-12-1960 vide Ex. A11 is valid to grant the relief of declaration in favour of Plaintiffs. 2) Whether Exs. A1 to A10 can be relied for granting injunction in favour of Plaintiffs by overlooking/ not considering Ex. B1-B17 pahanies. 11. As mentioned supra, the basis for Plaintiffs to file the suit is Ex. A11 - Bainama/simple sale deed dated 27-12-1960. The trial Court had considered this aspect in Page No. 8 in Para 5 of the impugned judgment. PWs. 2 and 3 are attesting witnesses and they were examined to prove sale transaction vide Ex A11. A perusal of Ex. A11 reflects two fallacies in document. The stamp paper on which Ex.A11 was engrossed doesn't have the official seal and does not reflect as to which Authority had issued the same. This aspect was not explained by Plaintiffs, though there is some amount of cross- examination. That apart, Ex. A11 also does not have the details of name of purchaser and from whom the said stamp paper was purchased. At this juncture, it is necessary to consider the statement given by PW 2 who had pleaded ignorance of details as to who had purchased the stamp paper and in which place. PW2 had further stated after the sale transaction was reduced in writing on the stamp paper the parties have approached him at his house for attesting the same. From the said evidence, it is very clear that PW 2 being one of the witnesses to Ex. A11 does not have the knowledge of securing Ex. A11 stamp paper and for whom and neither is having knowledge of the contents of Ex. A11. Thus, evidence of PW2 is of no help to Plaintiffs more so when stamp paper lacks details. That apart, from the cross- examination of PWs. 1 and 3, it is elicited that they have no knowledge about the terms of sale transaction. 12. From the chronological events with regard to purchase of stamp paper and date of sale transaction, there is sufficient time gap. This creates suspicion about the subject sale transaction and this gap is sufficient enough to refuse to grant reliefs to Plaintiffs. 1 and 3, it is elicited that they have no knowledge about the terms of sale transaction. 12. From the chronological events with regard to purchase of stamp paper and date of sale transaction, there is sufficient time gap. This creates suspicion about the subject sale transaction and this gap is sufficient enough to refuse to grant reliefs to Plaintiffs. Furthermore, PW 1 was not present nor is a witness to Ex. A11, thereby he has no knowledge of terms of sale transaction about Ex. A11. Likewise, PWs. 2 and 3 pleaded ignorance with regard to the terms of sale transaction. Thus, Ex. A11 cannot be relied upon to grant any relief to Plaintiffs. 13. Coming to another issue with regard to application of Section 47 of the Act, the trial Court had held that there is prohibition under Section 47 for alienation of agriculture lands without prior permission of Tahsildar. In other words, it is requirement under law to obtain prior permission from the Tahsildar for alienation of agriculture lands, hence, subject sale transaction is hit by Section 47 of the Act. It is also held by the trial Court that even otherwise, subject sale transactions under Ex. A11 is assumed to be correct; the said transaction is hit by non-validation of Section 50(b) of the Act. This Court is of the view that the said finding of trial Court is not correct appreciation of law. Since Section 47 of (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture, Act 1950 is repealed without any saving clause. Thereby, there is no requirement under law for obtaining prior permission of Tahsildar for alienation of agriculture lands. This Court opines that appreciation of trial Court inter alia Sections 47 and 50(b) is not correct and thereby, this Court holds Section 47 as not applicable to present case for the reason that by the date of filing of suit, Section 47 is not in existence and repealed without any saving clause. While coming to this conclusion, this Court had relied upon the law laid down in Mohd. Qutubuddin vs. Aziz Khan (decided on 15. While coming to this conclusion, this Court had relied upon the law laid down in Mohd. Qutubuddin vs. Aziz Khan (decided on 15. 03.2002) which is extracted under., "In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the sale in favour of Muneera Sultana, the first plaintiff, on 28.7.1964 pendente lite by the Ummatul Basheera Begum, the owner of the land, is not hit by Section 47 of the tenancy Act as no possession was delivered to the first plaintiff at that stage. By the time the disputes over the property are settled, neither Section 47 was on statute book nor the time limit fixed for getting the alienation coupled with possession validated by following the procedure prescribed under Section 50-B of the act was available. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the transaction is not hit by Section 47 . For the sake of argument even if it is assumed that it is hit by Section 47 , the machinery provided under Section 50-B for validating the illegal transaction as valid was not available and it cannot be held that the transaction has to be treated as void for want of sanction. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by Learned Single Judge in C.C.C.A. No. 28 of 1991 is confirmed on a different reasoning. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 131 of 1999 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 14. Coming to the aspect of physical possession, Plaintiffs relied upon Exs. Al to A11. Per contra, defendants relied upon Exs. B1-B15 pahanies which are for the years 1983-84 to 1998-99 and so also, Ex. B16 which are orders of mutation and Ex. B17 are photographs. Plaintiffs have not challenged mutation proceeding vide Ex. B16 before competent authority. This act of omission of Plaintiffs reflects on their conduct thereby the said mutation orders are binding on them. Likewise, Pahanies relied on by Plaintiffs are for 1980-81 to 1995-96. It is not explained by Plaintiffs as to why there were no entries in revenue records when subject sale transaction was of 27-12-1960. This silence rather non-explanation in their pleadings and evidence is fatal to the case of Plaintiffs. Pahanies Exs. A4 to A10 clearly reflect that K.Chinna Reddy and Narayana Reddy are Pattedars and that Plaintiffs’ names are reflected in possession column of Pahanies. This silence rather non-explanation in their pleadings and evidence is fatal to the case of Plaintiffs. Pahanies Exs. A4 to A10 clearly reflect that K.Chinna Reddy and Narayana Reddy are Pattedars and that Plaintiffs’ names are reflected in possession column of Pahanies. Non-production of records for the period 1960-1981 is suspicious and will give adverse presumption against Plaintiffs. Ex. A1 is land revenue passbooks which genuinty is under cloud and finding of trial Court that few pages of Ex. Al have been inserted is very crucial. In the grounds of Appeal, the said finding was not put to challenge neither any submissions were made at the time of hearing. Thus, Ex. A1 is also suspicious and cannot be relied upon. In the view of the above discussion the conduct of the Plaintiffs is not bona fide. 15. This Court considering all the aspects as discussed above, finds that there is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal therefore, is dismissed while confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial court. No costs. 16. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.