JUDGMENT:

1. Since both the appeals raise common substantial questions of law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. S.A.No.882 of 2010 assails the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2010 in A.S.No.310 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, whereunder the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1497 of 1998, dated 21.04.2005 by the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. S.A.No.114 of 2012 assails the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011 in A.S.No.107 of 2006 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, whereunder the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1498 of 1998, dated 21.04.2005 by the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. Both the aforesaid suits were filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties and also for mesne profits and the same were dismissed.

5. The appellant in S.A.No.882 of 2010 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1497 of 1998 and the appellant in S.A.No.114 of 2012 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1498 of 1998. Respondent in both these appeals is the defendant in both the suits. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein are referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondent herein is referred to as the defendant.

6. The case of the plaintiffs is that Smt.Noorkhatoon, wife of late Mohd.Sharfuddin, was the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing Municipal No.10-5-244, an extent of 235 square yards of land, situated at Ahmed Nagar, First Lancer, Hyderabad. Smt.Noorkhatoon gifted two portions of the said house property comprising an area of 58.75 square yards each, which are suit schedule properties, to the plaintiffs, who are her daughters, through gift deeds both dated 13.07.1984 vide document Nos.1592/1984 and 1590/1984. Similarly, Smt.Noorkhatoon has executed various registered gift deeds in favour of other daughters in respect of other portions of the said house property.

7. The defendant is the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, under an oral agreement of tenancy, handed over the suit schedule properties to the defendant on 01.07.1987 on monthly rent of Rs.400/- payable on or before 5th of each English calendar month. The defendant committed default in payment of rent, for which, the plaintiff in O.S.No.1498 of 1998 filed an eviction petition in R.C.No.615 of 1994 on the ground of personal requirement against the defendant on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The defendant contested the said eviction petition claiming that he is the owner of the property by virtue of a registered sale deed executed on 05.09.1985 by Smt.Noorkhatoon in his favour, after revoking the gifts made in favour of the plaintiffs through registered revocation deeds dated 03.09.1985. The defendant, taking undue advantage of the relationship, had created the alleged deeds of revocation of gift deeds and registered sale deed in his favour. On account of denial of title over the suit properties by the defendant, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition by order dated 23.09.1997 with an observation that there is a serious dispute between the parties with regard to title.

8. The plaintiffs’ pleadings further show that Smt.Noorkhatoon had no right to revoke the gifts executed by her favour of the plaintiffs and she was not competent to execute registered sale deed in favour of the defendant. The revocation deeds as well as the sale deed are fictitious and bogus documents and are not binding on the plaintiffs. The sister of the plaintiffs viz., Zahra Begum filed a criminal case against the defendant for fabricating the sale deed and criminal proceedings are pending.

9. The plaintiffs’ pleadings further show that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and the defendant is