( 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