In civil suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their claims, and failure to do so results in dismissal of their suits.

JUDGMENT :

(Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.)

A.S.No.2137 of 2004 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by plaintiffs in O.S.No.102 of 1999 against the decree, dated 11.02.2004 passed in O.S.No.102 of 1999, on the file of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam.

A.S.No.2138 of 2004 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.150 of 1999 against the decree, dated 11.02.2004 passed in O.S.No.150 of 1999, on the file of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam.

The trial Court clubbed both these suits and recorded common evidence in O.S.No.102 of 1999 and pronounced common judgment in both the suits and therefore common judgment is being pronounced in both these appeals.

2. The appellants in A.S.No.2137 of 2004 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.102 of 1999 and they are the defendants in O.S.No.150 of 1999 whereas the appellants in A.S.No.2138 of 2004 are the defendants in O.S.No.150 of 1999 and they are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.102 of 1999. All the parties in two appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The suit, O.S.No.102 of 1999, is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for seeking relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaint schedule property and also sought for the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed Ex.B.2, dated 10.07.1978.

4. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.150 of 1999 filed a suit against the defendants for seeking relief to declare by way of rectification that survey number of the property covered by registered sale deed, dated 10.07.1978 bearing document No.4283/1978 is in Sy.No.319, but not in Sy.No.315 as mentioned in the document and the patta number of the said suit property is 2660 but not 563 and also for seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants and their men to execute a rectification deed incorporating the correct Sy.No.319 and also correct Patta No.2660 as prayed in the plaint.

5. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.102 of 1999 i.e., the defendants in O.S.No.150 of 1999 is as follows:

The 2nd plaintiff/Smt. Peesa Appa Rao @ Aruna is the sister-in-law of the 1st plaintiff/Sree Peesa Appa Rao @ Rodda. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the owners of the plaint schedule property and it is their ancestral property. They are in possession and enjoyment of the same. They have been paying taxes to revenue department. In the year 1981-82 the then Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam issued ryotwari passbook in favour of the 1st plaintiff after due enquiry and verification. He also issued a title deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff. The defendants tried to occupy the plaint schedule property by force on 20.01.1999. The plaintiffs could resist with the intervention of local elders. The plaintiffs never executed the sale deed, dated 10.07.1978 in favour of the defendants. The defendants brought up the documents by manipulation. The plaintiffs never received any sale consideration from the defendants. They never went to the Sub-Registrar’s Office to execute the sale deed. They did not put their thumb marks. The plaintiffs knew the defendants for a long time. The defendants represented to the plaintiffs that they could secure pattadar passbook for the plaintiffs and on that pretext the defendants had obtained some thumb marks of the plaintiffs on some papers stating that they were necessary to apply for passbook. Accordingly, the 1st plaintiff and the husband of 2nd plaintiff put their thumb marks on some papers. Subsequent to the filing of the suit in O.S.No.150 of 1999 by Jagga Rao and Syamala Rao, the plaintiffs came to know that the papers containing thumb marks of the plaintiffs were manipulated and they were converted into fraudulent sale deed. The plaint schedule property has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs only.

6. The case o