JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

The A.S.No.238 of 1999 is filed by defendants against the decree and common judgment, dated 05.10.1998, passed in O.S.No.11 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.47 of 1991, before the Sub-Court, Gudivada, against the defendants for seeking relief of cancellation of sale deeds dated 02.01.1991 and 16.02.1991 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction, against Yadavareddi Bhaskara Rao and Yadavareddi Siva Venkata Krishna Rao. Later it was transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Machilipatnam and the same is re-numbered as O.S.No.11 of 1994.

2. The Tr.A.S.No.310 of 2006 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.145 of 1993, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. The appellant/plaintiff filed the said suit i.e. O.S.No.128 of 1992, for seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men, followers and agents etc., from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties and for costs of the suit, before the District Munsif Court, Gannavaram, and the same was transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Machilipatnam and re-numbered as O.S.No.145 of 1993

3. The trial Court after completion of a full-fledged trial, partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.11 of 1994 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.145 of 1993, vide its common judgment dated 05.10.1998. Aggrieved against the decree and common judgment dated 05.10.1998 passed in O.S.No.11 of 1994 and O.S.No.145 of 1993, the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.11 of 1994 filed A.S.No.238 of 1999 and the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.145 of 1993 filed Tr.A.S.No.310 of 2006.

4. Both the appeal and transfer appeal are filed against the common judgment dated 05.10.1998 passed in O.S.No.11 of 1994 and O.S.No.145 of 1993, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, and both the appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The parties to the above two appeals are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

6. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.11 of 1994, in brief is as follows:

I. The plaintiff pleaded that she lost her husband about 30 years ago and that she is an illiterate woman having no worldly knowledge and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are father and son. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No.1 had been projecting himself as an elder and respectable person in the village and the brothers of the plaintiff are also illiterate and are not on cordial terms with her. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No.1, taking advantage of her vulnerable situation and absence of any male member in her family to assist her, began showing interest in her welfare and pretended to sympathize with her plight. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No.1 professed himself to be her well-wisher and the defendant No.1 was also assisting the plaintiff in her Court matters as well as in her money-lending transactions and, thereby, gained her confidence and trust.

II. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No.1, while representing the miserable condition of defendant No.2, requested her to execute a sale deed conveying a small extent of land in favour of defendant No.2 for his residential purpose. Out of sympathy towards the defendants, the plaintiff agreed to convey an extent of Ac.0.04 cents in R.S.No.68/2A out of the total extent of Ac.0.18 cents situated in the said survey number. The plaintiff further pleaded that acting upon the representations made by defendant No.1, she agreed to execute the necessary conveyance deed in respect of the said extent in favour of defendant No.2 and accordingly, defendant No.1 got the document prepared and took her to the office of the Sub-Registrar at Vuyyuru for registration of the same. The plaintiff further pleaded that thereafter, the defendant No.1 informed the p