JUDGMENT : V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.52 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 05.12.2018, reversing the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.554 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, dated 27.08.2012. 2. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the O.S.No.554 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. During the pendency of the appeal suit before the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, the 2 nd appellant herein died and the appellant Nos.3 to 6 herein are brought on record as legal representatives of the 2 nd appellant. Further during the pendency of this appeal, the 1 st appellant died and her legal representatives are already brought on record as appellant Nos.3 to 6. 3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.554 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, with a prayer for declaration that the document bearing No.7738 of 2006 of Sub Registrar Office, Mangalagiri, executed by the 2 nd defendant in favour of 1 st defendant on 27.11.2006 is void, inoperative and therefore, it shall be cancelled. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, allowed the first appeal and reversed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court by decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiffs. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants/appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in OS.No.554 of 2008, is as follows: The husband of 1 st plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, his mother Devamma purchased the properties as guardian of Kotaiah and Sivaiah, was in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property till Kotaiah and Sivaiah attained majority and after that, both Kotaiah and Sivaiah were in joint possession and enjoyment of the said property till their death. The said Thota Kotaiah and Sivaiah died intestate, then the plaintiffs 1 to 5 being the legal heirs of Thota Kotaiah succeeded undivided half share in plaint schedule property of said Kotaiah, so also plaintiffs 6 to 8 being legal heirs of Thota Sivaiah succeeded remaining half share in the plaint schedule property, all plaintiffs 1 to 8 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is further averred that the 2 nd defendant executed a gift deed in favour of 1 st defendant who is wife of 2 nd defendant as such, the said gift deed executed in favour of 1 st defendant by 2 nd defendant is void, inoperative and liable to be cancelled as 2 nd defendant has no right to execute such document in favour of 1 st defendant. Hence, the suit. 7. The brief facts of the written statement, filed by the defendants, are as follows :- Both Thota Kotaiah and Sivaiah during their life time and after attaining majority sold the plaint schedule property to 2 nd defendant under a possessory agreement of sale, dated 09.12.1972, as such, 2 nd defendant is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of possessory agreement of sale, dated 09.12.1972 and ever since, the 2 nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till it was bequeathed to his wife 1 st defendant under a registered gift deed bearing No.7738/2006, dated 27.11.2006 of Sub-Registrar Office, Mangalagiri. Therefore, the 1 st defendant became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and has been in possession and enjoyment of same. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiari, settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of plaintiffs, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked. On behalf of defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked. 10. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiari, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit with costs. On behalf of defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked. 10. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiari, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.52 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein, the following point came up for consideration: Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to set aside the decree passed against them? 11. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur i.e., first appellate judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the point, as above, against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs by decreeing the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in OS.No.554 of 2008 filed the present second appeal. 12. On hearing both sides, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court on 14.02.2019: 1) Whether the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court is in accordance with the provisions of Order XLI Ruled 31 of C.P.C.? 2) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 3) Whether a simple suit for declaration that Ex.A.2-regitered gift deed, dated 27.11.2006 is void and inoperative, is maintainable without seeking any consequential relief of either for recovery of possession or permanent injunction? 4) In the absence of any dispute as to the execution of Ex.B1 possessory agreement, dated 09.12.1972, whether the subsequent registered document, dated 13.03.2005 Ex.A.2 can be questioned after lapse of more than three decades? 13. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri N. Srihari, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Sri A. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 14. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants would contend that the decree and judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Judge is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He would further contend that the simple suit for declaration that the registered gift deed bearing No.7738/2006, dated 27.11.2006 is void and inoperative without seeking any consequential relief of either recovery of possession or permanent injunction is not at all maintainable. He would further contend that the simple suit for declaration that the registered gift deed bearing No.7738/2006, dated 27.11.2006 is void and inoperative without seeking any consequential relief of either recovery of possession or permanent injunction is not at all maintainable. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge by came to a right conclusion and dismissed the suit, but the learned First Appellate Court came to a wrong conclusion and allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. He would further contend that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Judge. 15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned First Appellate Judge rightly set aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by learned First Appellate Judge. 16. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence. In a case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh , [ AIR 1993 SC 398 ] , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar , [AIR 1999 SC 471] , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 17. The case of the plaintiffs is that originally, the mother of Thota Kotaiah and Sivaiah viz., Devamma, purchased the plaint schedule property as a guardian of them and the same was in possession and enjoyment of the property till Kotaiah and Sivaiah attained majority and after both Kotaiah and Sivaiah were in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till their death and Kotaiah and Sivakiah died intestate and the plaintiffs 1 to 5 being the legal representatives of Kotaiah succeeded undivided half share in the plaint schedule property and so also the plaintiffs 6 to 8 being the legal representatives of Sivaiah succeeded the remaining half share in the plaint schedule property and all the plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is the specific case of the appellants that 2 nd defendant purchased the plaint schedule property under a possessory agreement of sale, dated 09.12.1972, as such, 2 nd defendant is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and ever since he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same and he executed a registered gift settlement deed in favor of his wife i.e., 1 st defendant under a registered gift settlement deed, dated 27.11.2006 in Sub Registrar Office, Mangalagiri. Therefore, it is undisputed by both the parties that Kotaiah and Sivaiah were the original owners of the plaint schedule property for an extent of Ac.0-55 cents. 18. Therefore, it is undisputed by both the parties that Kotaiah and Sivaiah were the original owners of the plaint schedule property for an extent of Ac.0-55 cents. 18. It is the specific contention of the appellants that the 2 nd defendant purchased the plaint schedule property under a unregistered possessory agreement of sale, dated 09.12.1972 under Ex.B1. As seen from Ex.B1, agreed sale consideration is Rs.1,400/- from out of Rs.1,400/-, an advance amount of Rs.600/- was only paid to the original owners i.e., Kotaiah and Sivaiah and remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- has to be paid by 2 nd defendant at the time of registration of the sale deed. It is undisputed fact that the 2 nd defendant has not obtained any registered sale deed from Kotaiah and Sivaiah. As stated supra, from out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,400/-, an amount of Rs.600/- which is less than 50% of the total agreed sale consideration was only paid on the date of Ex.B1. Admittedly, no registered sale deed was obtained by 2 nd defendant from Kotaiah and Sivaiah. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Kotaiah died in the year 1996 intestate and Sivaiah died in the year 1991 intestate. In such a case, the 2 nd defendant has to obtain regular registered sale deed from the legal representatives of Kotaiah and Sivaiah i.e., plaintiffs herein. There is no evidence on record that the 2 nd defendant paid balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- to Kotaiah and Sivaiah. It was stated by 1 st defendant in her evidence that her husband i.e., 2 nd defendant paid remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- to Kotaiah and Sivaiah within one year. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the 2 nd defendant i.e., husband of 1 st defendant paid remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- to Kotaiah and Sivaiah. The 2 nd defendant was alive during the pendency of the suit, but he did not enter into the witness box to prove that he paid remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- to Kotaiah and Sivaiah. 19. The 2 nd defendant was alive during the pendency of the suit, but he did not enter into the witness box to prove that he paid remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- to Kotaiah and Sivaiah. 19. Law is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and others , [ AIR 1999 SC 1441 ] wherein it was held as follows: “Where the party to the suit does not appear into witness box and states his own case on oral and does not offer himself to the cross examination by the other side, a presumption would arose that the case set up by him is not correct”. 20. The original of Ex.B1 is in possession of the defendants. If really the 2 nd defendant paid remaining sale consideration of Rs.800/- to Kotaiah and Sivaiah, what prevented him for obtaining endorsement on Ex.B1 with regard to alleged payment of remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- to Kotaiah and Sivaiah. There is no endorsement on Ex.B1 that the 2 nd defendant paid the remaining agreed balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- to Kotaiah and Sivaiah. Therefore, the alleged payment of remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- to Kotaiah and Sivaiah is not at all proved by the appellants. Therefore, it is clear that remaining sale consideration of Rs.800/- in Ex.B1 alleged agreement of sale is not at all paid to the original owners of the plaint schedule property i.e., Kotaiah and Sivaiah. The alleged agreement of sale is an unregistered agreement of sale. In the alleged agreement of sale, it was specifically recited that the possession was delivered to the 2 nd defendant. As stated supra, there is evidence on record to show that the 2 nd defendant paid remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- to Kotaiah and Sivaiah i.e., original owners of the plaint schedule property. 21. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that Kotaiah and Sivaiah died intestate in the year 1996 and 1991 respectively. In such a case, the 2 nd defendant has to obtain regular registered sale deed after paying remaining balance sale consideration to the plaintiffs being legal representatives of Kotaiah and Sivaiah. 21. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that Kotaiah and Sivaiah died intestate in the year 1996 and 1991 respectively. In such a case, the 2 nd defendant has to obtain regular registered sale deed after paying remaining balance sale consideration to the plaintiffs being legal representatives of Kotaiah and Sivaiah. As noticed supra, the alleged agreement of sale is an unregistered agreement of sale and remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- from out of Rs.1,400/- has not been paid to the original owners of the plaint schedule property i.e., Kotiah and Sivaiah. Therefore, the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable property on the basis of an unregistered agreement of sale that to balance of agreed sale consideration was not paid to the original owners. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of law on its basis. Even if the agreement of sale was registered, still it could not be said that the 2 nd defendant have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement of sale he could have claim relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. Admittedly, the 2 nd defendant has not instituted the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. As stated supra, the total balance sale consideration is not at all paid by the 2 nd defendant. The recitals alleged in Ex.B1 clearly goes to show that the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- has to be paid at the time of registration of sale. Therefore, the alleged unregistered agreement of sale is incomplete document and the title will not be derived to the 2 nd defendant from the original owners of the plaint schedule property. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property. Law is also well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be transferred without registered document. Therefore, undoubtedly, in the case on hand, the 2 nd defendant did not obtain any title in respect of the plaint schedule property. Law is also well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be transferred without registered document. Therefore, undoubtedly, in the case on hand, the 2 nd defendant did not obtain any title in respect of the plaint schedule property. It is also settled that sale of immovable property can be made only by way of registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter of the property. It is also well settled that the agreement to sell does not create any interest of the proposed vendee in the suit schedule property. As per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, the title in immovable property valued at more than hundred rupee can be conveyed only by executing a registered sale deed. Section 54 specifically provides that a contract for sale of immovable property was a contract evidencing the fact that the sale of such property shall take place on the terms settled between the parties, but does not, of itself create any interest in or charge on such property. It is also not in dispute that the suit land sought to be conveyed is of the value of more than hundred rupees. Therefore, unless there was a registered document of sale in favour of the 2 nd defendant, the title of the suit land continued to vest in original owners only. It is obvious that an agreement of sale create no interest in the land. Therefore, unless there was a registered document of sale in favour of proposed transferee, the title of the land would not get divested from the vendor. In the case on hand, admittedly, no title was conveyed to the 2 nd defendant from original owners of plaint schedule property. 22. It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that Ex.B1 is not disputed by the plaintiffs. As per the case of the plaintiffs, they have no knowledge about Ex.B1 . In the written statement it was pleaded by the appellants about Ex.B1 agreement of sale. The stamp papers used for agreement are purchased in the name of one Betapudi Joji but not purchased either in the name of vendors or vendee. D.W.1 admitted in her evidence in cross examination that she does not know Betapudi Joji. In the written statement it was pleaded by the appellants about Ex.B1 agreement of sale. The stamp papers used for agreement are purchased in the name of one Betapudi Joji but not purchased either in the name of vendors or vendee. D.W.1 admitted in her evidence in cross examination that she does not know Betapudi Joji. There is no explanation by the appellants why the stamp papers of Ex.B1 were obtained in the name of third party i.e., Betapudi Joji instead of vendors or vendee i.e., original owners or 2 nd defendant. As stated supra, the 2 nd defendant is alive during the pendency of the suit, but he did not enter into the witness box. Admittedly, the 2 nd defendant did not obtain sale deed from the original owners of plaint schedule property or legal representatives of original owners of the plaint schedule property. As noticed supra, remaining balance sale consideration as mentioned in Ex.B.1 alleged unregistered agreement of sale is not at all paid by the 2 nd defendant to original owners of the plaint schedule property. For the aforesaid reasons, the 2 nd defendant is not having any right and title in the plaint schedule property. 23. The case of the appellants is that 2 nd defendant executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of his wife i.e., 1 st defendant on 27.11.2006. As stated supra, the 2 nd defendant is not having any right and title in respect of the plaint schedule property, therefore, he is not having any right to execute gift settlement deed in favour of his wife 1 st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. It is the specific case of the defendants that the 2 nd defendant purchased the plaint schedule property under an unregistered possessory agreement of sale. In the gift settlement deed, there was a specific recital by the 2 nd defendant that the plaint schedule property was ancestral property of the 2 nd defendant, it is nothing but contrary to the own pleadings of the defendants. There is no mention in Ex.A2 gift settlement deed the 2 nd defendant got purchased the property under Ex.B1 alleged unregistered agreement of sale. 24. There is no mention in Ex.A2 gift settlement deed the 2 nd defendant got purchased the property under Ex.B1 alleged unregistered agreement of sale. 24. In the case of Ramesh Kumar and another vs. Furu Ram and another , [(2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 613] , the Apex Court held as follows: “It is well settled that no amount of evidence contrary to the pleading can be relied on or accepted. In this case, there is variance and divergence between the pleading and documentary evidence, pleading and oral evidence and between the oral and documentary evidence. It is thus clear that the entire case of the respondents is liable to be rejected. The different versions clearly demonstrate fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the respondents.” Admittedly, the 2 nd defendant who is alive during the pendency of the suit, he did not enter into the witness box. As stated supra, the 2 nd defendant did not get any right and title in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, he cannot transfer his right and title in the plaint schedule property to the 1 st defendant under alleged gift settlement deed, since 2 nd defendant is not having any right and title in the plaint schedule property. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the name of the 2 nd defendant is mutated in Ex.B3 1B Adangal to show that the 2 nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment and is also titleholder of the property. As seen from Ex.B3 1B Adangal said to have been issued in the year 2008, but the fasli number is not at all mentioned. The suit is instituted in the year 2008. The source of acquisition of the property in column No.15 is kept blank. The law is well settled that entries in the revenue records do not confer any title in respect of the plaint schedule property. It is well settled that the revenue records confer no title on the party it has been held by the Apex Court in Suraj Bhan vs. Financial Commissioner and others that such entries are relevant only for physical purposes and substantial right and title of the ownership of claimants can be decided only by a competent civil Court in appropriate proceedings. 25. 25. It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the defendants are in possession of plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs have not sought any relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and that the suit is not at all maintainable. As stated supra, 1B Adangal for the year 2008 is only filed by the appellants and the same is marked as Ex.B3. The suit is instituted in the year 2008. The pattadar pass books and title deeds are not at all filed by the appellants. It was admitted by D.W.1 in her evidence in cross examination that no separate pattadar passbook was issued in respect of the plaint schedule property. As per the own case of the plaintiffs, they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. There is a specific recital in the plaint that the plaintiffs are in joint possession and they are the joint owners of the plaint schedule property. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 proved that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 26. Learned Senior Counsel for appellants placed a reliance in Vasantha (dead) through legal representative vs. Rajalakshmi alias Rajam (dead) through Legal Representatives , [(2024) 5 Supreme Court Cases 282] , wherein the Apex Court held as follows: We now proceed to examine the law on this issue. As submitted by the learned senior counsel for the Appellant, in Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra (1993 Supp (3) SCC 129) (2-Judge Bench), this Court while considering Section 42 of the erstwhile Specific Relief Act, 1877 to be pari materia with Section 34 of SRA, 1963 observed that the plaintiff’s not being in possession of the property in that case ought to have amended the plaint for the relief of recovery of possession in view of the bar included by the proviso. This position has been followed by this Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (two-Judge Bench), elaborated the position of a suit filed without the consequential relief. It was observed: CC p.173, paras 55-58) “55. This position has been followed by this Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (two-Judge Bench), elaborated the position of a suit filed without the consequential relief. It was observed: CC p.173, paras 55-58) “55. The section provides that courts have discretion as to declaration of status or right, however, it carves out an exception that a court shall not make any such declaration of status or right where the complainant, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. 56. In Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi [ (1973) 2 SCC 60 ] this Court had categorically held that the suit seeking for declaration of title of ownership but where possession is not sought, is hit by the proviso of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and, thus, not maintainable. In Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra [1993 Supp (3) SCC 129] this Court dealt with a similar issue where the plaintiff was not in exclusive possession of property and had filed a suit seeking declaration of title of ownership. Similar view has been reiterated observing that the suit was not maintainable, if barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. (See also Gian Kaur v. Raghubir Singh [ (2011) 4 SCC 567 ) 57. In view of the above, the law becomes crystal clear that it is not permissible to claim the relief of declaration without seeking consequential relief. 58. In the instant case, the suit for declaration of title of ownership had been filed, though Respondent 1-plaintiff was admittedly not in possession of the suit property. Thus, the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and, therefore, ought to have been dismissed solely on this ground. The High Court though framed a substantial question on this point but for unknown reasons did not consider it proper to decide the same.” The facts in the aforesaid case law are the plaintiff admitted the possession of the defendants in the suit schedule property. In the case on hand, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Though the defendants claimed possession, they relied on 1B adangal relates to the year 2008 in which year the suit is filed. In the case on hand, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Though the defendants claimed possession, they relied on 1B adangal relates to the year 2008 in which year the suit is filed. The said 1B adangal is not at all sufficient to prove the possession of the defendants in the plaint schedule property. Admittedly, the pattadar passbooks and title deeds are not at all filed. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiffs also not filed any documents to show their possession in the plaint schedule property. The contention of the plaintiffs is that they are in a joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property after the death of original owners Kotaiah and Sivaiah and they died intestate, the plaintiffs 1 to 5 being legal representatives of Kotaiah succeeded undivided half share in the plaint schedule property and the remaining plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Sivaiah succeeded remaining half share in the plaint schedule property. The material on record proves that the plaintiffs are having right of ownership in the plaint schedule property. The 2 nd defendant has not at all obtained any sale deed from original owners of the plaint schedule property, though they relied on alleged unregistered agreement of sale Ex.B1. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants paid remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- from out of Rs.1,400/-. The recitals in Ex.B1 go to show that less than 50% amount from out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,400/- i.e., Rs.600/- was only paid on the date of alleged agreement of sale and the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.800/- has to be paid at the time of registration of the same, but the appellants did not obtain any registered sale deed. 27. The plaintiffs in the suit is claimed the relief of declaration of title that the document No.7738/2006, dated 27.11.2006 said to have been executed by 2 nd defendant in favour of 1 st defendant is invalid document and the same is null and void. As stated supra, the 2 nd defendant did not get any registered sale deed from the original owners Kotaiah and Sivaiah in respect of the plaint schedule property and no sale deed has been obtained from the original owners by the 2 nd defendant. As stated supra, the 2 nd defendant did not get any registered sale deed from the original owners Kotaiah and Sivaiah in respect of the plaint schedule property and no sale deed has been obtained from the original owners by the 2 nd defendant. Though the appellants relied on Ex.B1 unregistered possessory agreement of sale, the recitals in Ex.B1 go to show that the entire sale consideration has not yet paid to the original owners i.e., Kotaiah and Sivaiah, only less than 50% of the sale consideration was paid and remaining amount of balance sale consideration has to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. As stated supra, still the regular registered sale deed has not obtained by the 2 nd defendant from Kotaiah and Sivaiah and the 2 nd defendant also not obtained any sale deed after paying the remaining balance sale consideration to the plaintiffs, since the plaintiffs are the original owners of the plaint schedule property. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the 2 nd defendant is not having any valid title in the plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the plaint schedule property and they are having joint rights and title in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the gift settlement deed said to have been executed by the 2 nd defendant in favour of his wife i.e., 1 st defendant is a void and invalid document since the 2 nd defendant has no right and title to execute a registered gift settlement deed in favour of his wife. Therefore, the alleged gift settlement deed i.e., original of Ex.A12, dated 13.03.2005 is liable to be cancelled. 28. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned First Appellate Judge came to a conclusion that the learned trial Judge came to a wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit and set aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge and the learned First Appellate Judge decreed the suit in O.S.No.554 of 2008 that the plaintiffs in the suit are entitled the relief of declaration that the gift settlement deed, dated 13.03.2005 said to have been executed by 2 nd defendant in favour of 1 st defendant is void, inoperative and cancelled. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Judge. 29. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Judge. 29. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Judge in A.S.No.52 of 2013. Considering the circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.