the oral sale was not proved and also found that no title passes under the oral sale without there being a registration =It was sought to be contended that when the long possession of the plaintiff is admitted, the Court should have granted an injunction against the defendants. But, however, it is to be noted that the grant of injunction is an equitable relief and the conduct of the plaintiff in seeking such a relief should be fair. When the plaintiff is not admitting her possession as a tenant, setting up a plea of purchase under oral sale and also being in possession without filing a suit for specific performance of the agreement, the plaintiff cannot rely upon the relief of injunction when the contractual term stipulates the registration of the document. = So far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, it postulates an intention on the part of the enjoyer to treat the property in his possession belonging to some other as his own property. It is well settled that there cannot be any adverse possession for a person against his own property. In this case, the plaintiff claims that the sale has taken place in 1990 and she has become the owner of the property and consequently, her animus is as an owner of the property in her own name and not in enjoyment of the property belonging to some other person as an owner. Therefore, even the plea under Section 53 of the Specific Relief Act is not open since there is no agreement in writing to sell the property. Consequently, there are no merits in the appeal and there are no grounds to admit.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.15 OF 2012 JUDGMENT:-              The plaintiff in O.S.No.711 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, is the appellant herein. 2.       The suit was filed for confirmation of title and possession and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment. 3.       According to the case of the plaintiff, defendants Nos.1 and 2 are her own sisters.  Defendants Nos.1 and 2 purchased the suit schedule property from one G.Tulasamma under the registered sale deed dated 04.08.1971.  The husband of the 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.8,000/- on 14.05.1987 and Rs.8,600/- on 04.08.1988 from the plaintiff  for agricultural purposes and executed promissory notes.  Subsequently, the said debts could not be discharged.  Therefore, the defendants accepted the said borrowing and agreed to sell the property orally as the borrowing was for the family necessity.  The consideration under the promissory notes was adjusted towards the sale consideration to a tune of Rs.25,000/-.  The plaintiff was put in possession of the property on 01.05.1990 and as per the understanding the defendants agreed to register the property as and when called for.  The mutation of the name of the plaintiff was accepted in the revenue records and pattadar pass book was also issued.  The plaintiff also took crop loan from mortgaging schedule property and revenue record discloses the possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff.  Though the cist was being paid, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment in her own right since 1990 and therefore, the suit was filed for confirmation of title.  Though the plaintiff and defendants have agreed to execute a registered sale deed, no registered sale deed was obtained.  The plaintiff is entitled to assert right in the schedule property.  The defendants have been making hectic efforts to deny the right of the plaintiff, and therefore, the suit was filed. 4.       The defendants contended the 2nd defendant was married and living at Visakhapatnam since 1986 and the 1st defendant has been cultivating the lands on her behalf.  The 1st defendant was in custody of the original title deeds.  The property was leased out to the plaintiff for a period of ten years as some monies were borrowed by the husband of the 1st defendant and the Maktha should have appropriated towards the debt.  The original sale deeds were also taken by the plaintiff by putting the 1st defendant in dark and they were not returned.  The plaintiff paid Maktha for some time and did not pay subsequently.  The 2nd defendant separately pleaded that she never sold the property and came to know that the plaintiff obtained pattadar pass book and managed revenue entries and filed an appeal before the revenue authorities and the same is pending.  The debts borrowed by the husband of the 1st defendant do not bind on the 2nd defendant. 5.       On the basis of the above pleadings, evidence was let-in and the trial Court found that the oral sale was not proved and also found that no title passes under the oral sale without there being a registration and consequently, the suit was dismissed.  Aggrieved by the said judgment, A.S.No.421 of 2000 was preferred to the VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur and he also dismissed the said suit.  Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 6.       The learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the suit filed by the plaintiff is valid and original sale deed Ex.A.1 was with the plaintiff and borrowing under Exs.A.2 and A.3 was proved and further contended that as the possession of the plaintiff is admitted over the suit schedule property as a tenant, Courts below should have granted the injunction. 7.       Evidently, in order to succeed in the suit, the plaintiff has to prove the factum of oral sale and also the alternative plea of establishing title by adverse possession.  Though generally for a transfer of immovable property, a registered sale deed is required, but in case of persons, who are in possession of the property, oral sale can be accepted after the payment of the entire consideration by the purchaser to the vendor or the possession of the property is made over to the purchaser.  But, however, in order to substantiate the oral sale, it has to be proved that the persons, who have got title to the property, have conveyed the same.  Evidently, according to the case of the plaintiff, the oral sale was done by the husband of the 1stdefendant.  The 2nd defendant is joint owner of the property and there is nothing on record to show that she has also sold the property and received any consideration.  The debts that were said to have been borrowed by the husband of the 1st defendant are for his family benefit, consequently the oral sale that was said to have been entered by the husband of the 1st defendant is not from the real owner of the property and consequently, it cannot be taken into consideration.  Even otherwise if the parties have contemplated under the oral sale that there shall be no further act to be done by any of the parties, the sale is complete.  But, however, in this case, it is the specific plea of the plaintiff that an agreement was arrived at, but subsequently a registered sale deed has to be executed.  Therefore, it is quite clear that the parties intended it to be only a contract and not a concluded sale.  If really the sale is true, the endorsement should have been made on the reverse of the promissory notes Exs.A.2 and A.3 about the alleged sale of the property and discharge of the promissory notes debt.  The absence of such an endorsement clearly shows that the claim of the plaintiff cannot be accepted.  8.       In fact, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the property was sold by the husband of the 1st defendant and though an authority is pleaded given by the defendants, there is nothing in writing.  Consequently, the sale set up by the plaintiff is not valid.  The Courts below have rightly found that the sale transaction entered by the husband of the 1st defendant will not bind on the 2nd defendant.  Merely the plaintiff got possession of the original document probably from the husband of the 1st defendant, it will not advance her case.  If really the sale is complete and the plaintiff has derived title in the property by virtue of adverse possession, the suit should have been filed for a declaration of title.  It was sought to be contended that when the long possession of the plaintiff is admitted, the Court should have granted an injunction against the defendants.  But, however, it is to be noted that the grant of injunction is an equitable relief and the conduct of the plaintiff in seeking such a relief should be fair. When the plaintiff is not admitting her possession as a tenant, setting up a plea of purchase under oral sale and also being in possession without filing a suit for specific performance of the agreement, the plaintiff cannot rely upon the relief of injunction when the contractual term stipulates the registration of the document. 9.       So far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, it postulates an intention on the part of the enjoyer to treat the property in his possession belonging to some other as his own property.  It is well settled that there cannot be any adverse possession for a person against his own property.  In this case, the plaintiff claims that the sale has taken place in 1990 and she has become the owner of the property and consequently, her animus is as an owner of the property in her own name and not in enjoyment of the property belonging to some other person as an owner. Therefore, even the plea under Section 53 of the Specific Relief Act is not open since there is no agreement in writing to sell the property. Consequently, there are no merits in the appeal and there are no grounds to admit. 10.     Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.  Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.           _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:24.07.2012 INL