M. Seetharama Murti, J.

This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code', for brevity) is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the decree and judgment dated 22.07.2010 of the learned X Additional Chief Judge, (Judge, Fast Track Court) City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in AS.No.489 of 2004. The learned Additional Chief Judge while dismissing the said appeal had confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court dated 30.08.2004 passed in OS.No.1725 of 1999 filed by the sole plaintiff against the sole defendant (since died) for declaration of title and recovery of plaint schedule house property and damages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of suit till date of delivery of possession and for other reliefs.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff ('the plaintiff', for brevity) and the learned senior counsel for the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4, who are brought on record on the death of the sole defendant. I have perused the material record.

3. At the time of admission of this appeal, the grounds nos.4 to 11 mentioned in the memorandum of grounds of appeal were taken note of. However, the learned counsel for the appellant had stated at the time of hearing that the questions already formulated need not be considered and that they may be eschewed from consideration and that in the place of the said questions, the substantial questions, which are involved, may be reframed. Accordingly and as desired, the questions earlier framed are deleted. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court.

1. Whether any sale deeds executed in violation of the Prohibitory order of the Hon'ble Court are valid.

2. Whether the court can deny the relief basing on the judgment passed in the previous lis without going into merits of the case denovo.

4. To adjudicate the lis and answer the above substantial questions, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to, to the extent necessary, with their names for convenience and clarity.

4.1 The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property bearing door no.14-3-46 admeasuring 80 square yards situate at Goshamahal, Hyderabad having purchased it for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed bearing document no.367 of 1989 dated 13.04.1989 from Ch. Sharada, who is the lawful owner of the property. The said Sharada in her turn had purchased the property from one Salamma for valuable consideration. Since the date of the said purchase, the plaintiff has been paying property tax to the MCH and her name is mutated in municipal record. After purchasing the property, she had filed RC.43 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad against the defendant (since died) for eviction. The RC was allowed since the defendant had remained ex parte. EP.14 of 1990 was filed and delivery of the property was obtained. After such delivery, the construction, being an old construction, had collapsed. Subsequently, on the application of the defendant, the ex parte order was set aside and possession was restored. Later, RCC was dismissed on merits. The rent appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed. The CRP filed was also dismissed confirming the finding of the Rent Controller that there was no landlady and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the dispute has to be determined by a civil Court. There were a series of litigations between the defendant and one Salamma and her son-Yadagiri. The plaintiff was impleaded as a party at a later stage to some of the suits. The sole defendant and his mother-Eswaramma filed a suit in OS.2070 of 1987 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against Salamma and Sharada for declaration of ownership and