Unregistered sale deeds have limited legal validity and cannot establish ownership or title; the burden of proof lies with appellants to substantiate claims in specific performance suits.

JUDGMENT :

P. SAM KOSHY, J.

1. Since the issue involved in the instant appeals is one and the same, we proceed to decide the instant appeals by way of this common judgment.

2. Appeal Suit No.451 of 2023 is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2023 in O.S.No.28 of 2020 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at Prashanth Nagar, Kukatpally; and Appeal Suit No.453 of 2023 is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2020 passed by the same Court (for short ‘the impugned judgments’).

3. Heard Mr.A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff, in both the appeals.

4. Initially, the appellants herein filed two suits, viz., O.S.No.27 of 2020 and O.S.No.28 of 2020 both under Order VII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for relief of specific performance of two unregistered Sale Deeds dated 09.04.1998 and 09.01.1999.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs herein, viz., Mr. L. Jaya Reddy and Mr. B. Aga Reddy, have filed the above suits seeking for specific performance of the above sale deeds. The relief sought for by the plaintiffs was for a direction to the respondent No.1 to complete the registration process of a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property pursuant to the above unregistered sale deeds in the above two suits; and also for a direction to the respondent No.2 to register the names of plaintiffs in the Dharani website by way of mutation in the Revenue Records so far as the suit schedule property is concerned. The contention of the appellants herein is that they are absolute owners and possessors of an extent of land admeasuring Acs.1.17 gts., situated in Survey No.66/2 of Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The claim of the appellants in the above two suits are that the two schedule properties in the two suits is part of a bigger chunk of Acs.5.00 of land which once stood in the name of one Mrs.Chandini Begum; after the death of Mrs.Chandini Begum, her legal representatives have sold the said Acs.5.00 of land in favour of one Mr.Bandaru Narayana Swamy (respondent No.1 in the instant appeals) under a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.6770 of 1989. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that on 09.04.1998 and 09.01.1999, the said respondent No.1 is said to have executed an unregistered sale deed each in favour of the plaintiffs herein insofar as Acs.1.17 gts., situated in Survey No.66/2 of Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, out of the total extent of Acs.5.00 gts. of land. It is contended that the above two plots of land purchased by the appellants admeasuring Acs.1.17 gts. each was purchased for a sale consideration of Rs.17,95,500/- and Rs.19,23,750.00, respectively. The appellants further contended that the entire sale consideration agreed upon was paid to the vendor, i.e., the respondent No.1. According to the appellants, the respondent No.1 did not get the sale deed registered because of certain litigation pending with the State Government in respect of the entire land situated at Survey No.66 of Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as there were certain claims made by the State Government in respect to the said property. Therefore, it was agreed between the pa