( 1 ) THESE two appeals are preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation which was 1 st Respondent in O. RNo. 13 8 of 1981, being aggrieved by the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed in C. M. A. No. 12 of 1986 and C. M. A. No. 512 of 1986. The Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to note a few facts of the case. On 4-12-1981 at about 7. 40 p. m. the driver of the appellant-Corporation parked the bus bearing No. APZ 9226 in Jalgoan bus stand and himself and conductor went to canteen to take meals. By the time they returned they found that the vehicle was jt the substantial question of law. However, the substantial question of law arising for consideration in this Appeal is whether the possession of the person can be disturbed on the ground of voidness of transaction under which possession is delivered and he can be denied the grant of relief of injunction against third parties on that ground.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff in the suit O. S. No. 310 of 1988 is the appellant herein. The suit was filed against the respondents-defendants for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was in the pleadings of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is having Door No. 17-1-42/1 and is situated at Main Bazar Area, Ramavaram, that there is a basement constructed in the year 1962 over the suit site and that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from the sons of Late Giridharlal who in turn had purchased the same from one Sri M. Sambamurthy. The pleadings referred to the execution of an Agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and payment of a consideration of Rs. 6,000/- on 14-3-1987 and that Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit had tried to purchase the suit properly and as the vendors did not sell the same to them, they developed a grudge against the plaintiff and started creating trouble and interference in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, with the support of the Defendant No. 3.

( 3 ) IN the joint written statement filed by the Defendants 1 and 2, the purchase of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff was denied and it was averred that even if there was a purchase, the same is null and void as the property is situated in the scheduled area and that mere agreement would not create any interest in the property and therefore the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. It was further averred that Defendants 1 to 3 are residing abutting the suit schedule property and the said plaint schedule property is being used as common passage. Defendant no. 3 filed an independent written statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff is not the owner or possessor and denying the purchase alleged and that the plaintiff and his alleged vendors being non-tribals, the alienation alleged is null and void in view of the provisions of Regulation (1) of 1970. It was further averred that the suit property does not belong to the Heeralal and others from whom the plaintiff alleges to have purchased.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs and on Appeal, the subordinate Judge at Kothagudem allowed the Appeal A. S. No. 29 of 1992 filed by the defendants and thereby set aside the Judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 310 of 1989 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court at kothagudem. It is against the said Judgment of Appellate Court that the above Second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

( 5 ) IT may be mentioned here that before both the Courts below, the respondents- defendants have not claimed any right in the suit schedule property except stating that a