C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

These four second appeals under Section 100 CPC arise out of the concurring judgments of the first appellate Court of the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, in separate appeals arising out of the dismissal of four suits. However, the defendants in all the four suits were the same. In consequence, the respondents in these four second appeals are common. M.Sreedevi was the plaintiff in three of the suits while in the fourth suit, the plaintiff was one P.Raj Narsing Rao. Further, the case of the appellants in these appeals is also the same. The appeals are therefore amenable to common disposal at this stage.

Specific performance suits in O.S.Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 of 2013 were instituted on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, against the same set of six defendants. M.Sreedevi was the sole plaintiff in O.S.Nos.7 and 8 of 2013 while one L.Subhash Rao and she were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.9 of 2013. L.Subhash Rao thereafter executed registered assignment deed dated 03.11.2014, whereby he assigned his rights in the suit schedule property in favour of M.Sreedevi. He therefore ceased to have interest in the litigation. O.S.No.6 of 2013 was filed by P.Raj Narsing Rao. All these suits were dismissed by the trial Court, vide separate judgments dated 24.11.2015. Aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S.Nos.7, 8 and 9 of 2013, M.Sreedevi preferred A.S.Nos.9, 10 and 11 of 2016 respectively before the first appellate Court. Similarly, P.Raj Narsing Rao, the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 2013, filed A.S.No.8 of 2016 before the first appellate Court. These four first appeals were dismissed by separate judgments dated 09.04.2018. S.A.Nos.1112, 1237 and 1250 of 2018 were filed by M.Sreedevi aggrieved by the dismissal of A.S.Nos.9, 10 and 11 of 2016 respectively while S.A.No.1265 of 2018 was preferred by P.Raj Narsing Rao against the dismissal of A.S.No.8 of 2016.

Heard Sri M.S.Prasad, learned senior counsel representing Sri Anish Sathya Kamal, learned counsel for M.Sreedevi, Sri Dida Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for Sri P.Raj Narsing Rao, the appellants in these appeals, and Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel on caveat for respondents 1 to 5 in each of these appeals.

Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suits.

The case of the plaintiffs was as follows: One T.Narayan Reddy was the absolute owner of an extent of Acs.12.03 guntas out of a total extent of Acs.20.11 guntas in Sy.No.56 of Dammaiguda Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He obtained a layout from the Gram Panchayat and converted the extent of Acs.12.03 guntas into residential plots. During his life time, T.Narayan Reddy along with defendants 1 to 5, who are his sons and daughters, and T.Laxma Reddy, his deceased son, sold several plots to defendant 6. Plot Nos.139, 140, 159, 160, 143, 156, 137, 138, 161 & 162 (claimed by M.Sreedevi) and Plot Nos.141, 142, 157 & 158 (claimed by P.Raj Narsing Rao) (hereinafter, ‘the suit plots’) are stated to be amongst the plots sold to defendant 6. Having received the entire sale consideration, they executed Receipt dated 19.11.1990 and delivered possession of the plots to defendant 6. They also executed registered deed of General Power of Attorney (GPA) bearing Document No.472 of 1990 dated 19.11.1990 delegating all powers, including the power of conveyance, to defendant 6. After execution of this document, the minor son of T.Narayan Reddy, viz., T.Laxma Reddy, died unmarried. In the year 1995, defendant 6 offered to sell the suit plots to the plaintiffs and agreements of sale were executed in this regard on 02.04.1995, 03.04.1995 and 04.04.1995. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant 6 delivered possession of the suit plots to them and that they have been in possession since