Registration of a document is deemed to be constructive notice, and possession can also be constructive notice. The court may refuse to grant equitable relief if the party approaching the court has not come with clean hands.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since these two appeals arise between the same parties out of the same suit, they are being disposed off by this common order.

2. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are preferred against the separate orders and decrees dated 06.02.2018 passed in Interlocutory Application No. 904 of 2018 in O.S. No. 1008 of 2018 and Interlocutory Application No. 903 of 2018 in O.S. No. 1008 of 2018 on the file of XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

3. The appellant herein is plaintiff in the above suit.

The case of the appellant/plaintiff

4. The appellant/plaintiff filed the said suit against respondents to: (i) declare a registered Sale-Deed dated 04.06.1988 executed by husband of 2nd defendant-Yadagiri Reddy and 3rd defendant in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 in respect of land admeasuring Acs. 7.39 gts. which is part and parcel of the suit Schedule property, as not binding on him to the extent of his 1/4th share; (ii) declare another registered Sale-Deed dated 22.08.1988 executed by 1st respondent in favour of 4th respondent in respect of land admeasuring Acs. 2.20 gts. which is part and parcel of the suit Schedule property, as not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of his 1/4th share and (iii) to declare the registered General Power of Attorney dated 20.12.2006 executed by 5th respondent in favour of 4th respondent and two registered Sale-Deeds dated 08.01.2007 bearing Document Nos. 477 and 478 of 2007 executed by respondent nos. 4 and 6 to 9 in favour of respondent nos. 10 to 12 in respect of the suit schedule property, as null and void and not binding on him.

5. The case of appellant is that he is one of the sons of late Kashi Reddy; that respondent nos. 1, 3 and one Yadagiri Reddy are his brothers; that Yadagiri Reddy died, and the 2nd respondent is the widow of the said Yadagiri Reddy.

6. It is the contention of appellant that the suit schedule property is a portion of the larger extent of Acs. 33.37 gts. in Survey Nos. 38, 39, 49 and 50 of Dasarapally Village which was owned by his father and his father's two brothers; that the plaint Schedule property is an extent of Acs.10.18 gts. that Kashi Reddy died in the year 1980 leaving behind Acs.15.18 gts. which fell to his share; that Acs.5.00 gts. in Survey No. 50 out of this extent was sold under a registered Sale-Deed dated 24.11.1982 by the appellant's mother, the appellant and his 3 brothers under a registered Sale-Deed dated 24.11.1982 and the remaining land left was Acs. 10.18 gts. in which the appellant has joint ownership and possession and that the remaining land was not divided by metes and bounds between appellant and his brothers.

7. It is contended by the appellant that in February, 2018, the appellant came to know that respondent nos. 11 and 12 claiming to be partners of 10th respondent-Firm and purchasers of the suit Schedule property from respondent nos. 4 to 9 started interfering with the joint possession and enjoyment of the appellant over the suit Schedule property; that he was informed by respondents about the above referred Ex.P.4 - General Power of Attorney dated 08.12.2006 and Sale-Deeds Exs.P.5 and P.6 dated 08.12.2007, executed by 4th respondent along with respondent nos. 6 to 9 in favour of respondent nos. 10 to 12.

8. He contended that these Sale-Deeds Exs.P.5 and P.6 indicated that the 3rd respondent executed Ex.P.2 Sale-Deed dated 4.6.1988 for Acs.7.39 gts. in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5, and the 1st respondent executed Ex.P.3 Sale-Deed dated 22.08.1988 for an extent of Acs.2.20 gts. in favour of 4th respondent; and that these Sale-Deeds are not binding on appellant and he is deemed to be in joint possession and enjoyment thereof.

9. The appellant further contended that respondent nos. 1, 3 and Late Yadagiri Reddy had no exclusive right to deal with the suit Schedule property; that respondent nos. 10 to 12 have grabbed the entire suit schedule property in June, 2018 under the guise of Exs.P.5 and P.6 Sale-Deeds da