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 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 parties in the instant appeals that the sale deed would be registered immediately after the litigation in respect of the claim raised by the State Government stands finally adjudicated. 6. According to the appellants, though the claim of the State Government so far as their possession over the said property that is situated at Survey No.66, the suits filed by the appellants stood decided against the State Government and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was upheld up till the stage of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. According to the appellants, though the claim of the State Government so far as their possession over the said property that is situated at Survey No.66, the suits filed by the appellants stood decided against the State Government and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was upheld up till the stage of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to them, it is only subsequently when the appellants came to know that the verdict would be was going in favour of respondent No.1, the appellants approached the respondent No.1 for getting the sale deed registered at the earliest. However, the respondent No.1 showed no interest in getting the property registered in favour of the appellants, and as a consequence, the appellants herein got issued a legal notice to the respondent No.1 on 20.01.2020. Yet, the respondent No.1 did not care to comply his part of the sale contract, which led to filing of the above two suits by the appellants before the Trial Court seeking for specific performance of the two unregistered sale deeds, dated 09.04.1998 and 09.01.1999. 7. The two suits, viz., O.S.No.27 of 2020 and O.S.No.28 of 2020, were registered before the Trial Court and notices were issued to the parties. In spite of proper service to the respondents, and since there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.1 either in person or through a duly engaged counsel, the Trial Court proceeded ex parte against the respondent No.1 and decided the two suits on merits. 8. The appellants herein have submitted their evidence in the form of an affidavit, and since the respondents have been proceeded ex parte there was no cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. In addition, there was also no evidence in rebuttal available on record. Therefore, the Trial Court, taking into consideration the averments made in the affidavits that the appellants have filed, has proceeded to decide the two suits on merits. Even though the respondent No.2 has been proceeded ex parte, the Trial Court found that the appellants have not been able to establish their case so far as the agreement of sale is concerned. Insofar as the validity and veracity of the two unregistered sale deeds are concerned, the Trial Court also found that there were certain discrepancies and infirmities in the evidence of PW.1 and also in the pleadings put forth by the appellants. Insofar as the validity and veracity of the two unregistered sale deeds are concerned, the Trial Court also found that there were certain discrepancies and infirmities in the evidence of PW.1 and also in the pleadings put forth by the appellants. The Trial Court further found that the appellants have not been able to produce cogent, strong material in support of their contentions. Therefore, the Trial Court finally dismissed the two suits on the same day and on identical finding of facts, by holding that the appellants were not entitled for any specific relief in the nature of specific performance of sale contract. It is this dismissal of the two suits which stand assailed in the instant appeals by the appellants. 9. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants in both the appeals, contended that the Trial Court has erred inasmuch as in not appreciating the facts properly that, there were two unregistered sale deeds already executed between the parties and the appellants and the respondent No.1 have completed all the required formalities so far as the completion of sale transaction pertaining to the suit schedule property is concerned. He further contended that except for registration of the sale deeds, all other requirement of law was adhered to and therefore the Trial Court, instead of dismissing the two suits, it ought to have decreed the suits in favour of appellants. He further submitted that once when there was no evidence in rebuttal to disprove the claim of appellants, the Court below ought to have entertained the claim petition. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended when the respondents were set ex parte once, there was nothing in rebuttal for the Trial Court to have not accepted the version put forth by the appellants or to presume that the contentions so made by the appellants are false and incorrect. He further submitted that in the absence of any cogent evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the appellants, there was not much scope for the Trial Court to conduct an enquiry much less a roving enquiry. He further submitted that in the absence of any cogent evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the appellants, there was not much scope for the Trial Court to conduct an enquiry much less a roving enquiry. He further submitted that the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that once when the entire sale transaction was made and the physical possession of the suit schedule property also being vested with the appellants, the entire contract stood concluded between the parties and, for this reason also the Trial Court could not have dismissed the two suits. He further submitted that possession of land was not of much consequence and relevance for establishing a suit for specific performance, but failure to establish possession could not have been a ground available for the Trial Court to dismiss the suits where the relief sought for was only for a specific performance of an agreement of sale so far as the registration of the unregistered sale deeds are concerned. Thus, for all these reasons, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants prayed for allowing of the appeals and also for grant of relief of specific performance insofar as registration of the sale deeds to be completed at the earliest. 11. In the aforesaid factual backdrop of the case what we need to understand and appreciate is that the instant appeals are filed by the appellants / plaintiffs challenging the ex parte judgment and decree. In spite of the respondents having been proceeded ex parte with no written statement or any evidence in rebuttal available on record with the Trial Court even then the appellants’ two suits for specific performance have got dismissed. Therefore, it becomes all the more necessary for the appellants to prove and establish their case for issuance of a judgment and decree of specific performance. Having lost the suits before the Trial Court and now the instant appeals having been filed, it is still the responsibility of the appellants to establish their case for issuance of a decree of specific performance. When the suits have been proceeded ex parte and in the appeal also the respondents have gone ex parte, the burden is all the more upon the appellants to establish their case for allowing of the appeals. 12. When the suits have been proceeded ex parte and in the appeal also the respondents have gone ex parte, the burden is all the more upon the appellants to establish their case for allowing of the appeals. 12. From the pleadings and evidence available on record some of the admitted factual matrix of the case is that : the entire claim of the appellants herein is resting upon an unregistered Sale Deeds executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the appellants herein on 09.04.1998 and 09.01.1999, respectively. The unregistered Sale Deed is one which has been executed by one Mr. Bandaru Narayana Swamy as the vendor of the appellants herein. Except for the averment made by the appellants, there does not seem to be any other evidence available to prove the execution of the unregistered Sale Deed. Except for the examination-in-chief in the form of an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 , there is no supporting evidence to any of the contentions put forth by the appellants. The two unregistered Sale Deeds dated 09.04.1998 and 09.01.1999 show that there were two witnesses who had signed these documents : (a) one was the son of the vendor himself, viz., Mr. B. Ravi Kumar (son of Mr. B. Narayana Swamy), who was the common witness in the two unregistered sale deeds; and (b) the name of the other witness in the unregistered sale deed dated 09.04.1998 was Mr. K. Narayana Rao, and in the other unregistered sale deed dated 09.01.1999, the name of the witness was Mr. Venkatesham. For reasons best known, all these witnesses were called and examined to support the claim of the appellants so far as validity and veracity of the unregistered sale deeds are concerned. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that the two unregistered sale deeds do not disclose the mode of payment made by the vendee to the vendor except for reference of the sale consideration having been paid and the vendor having received the same; or whether the sale consideration was paid by cash or by cheque. The two unregistered sale deeds are also silent of the date on which the payments were made because in the two unregistered sale deeds, it is reflected that the vendees have already paid the entire sale consideration. The two unregistered sale deeds are also silent of the date on which the payments were made because in the two unregistered sale deeds, it is reflected that the vendees have already paid the entire sale consideration. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that Clause (4) of the unregistered sale deed has a clause which is common in the two unregistered sale deeds, which for ready reference is being reproduced hereunder, viz., “4. That the schedule property hereby sold is free from all encumbrances, charges, prior sale, mortgages, gifts, liens, court attachments and litigations acquisition / requisition proceedings, etc., and the Vendor have full power and absolute authority to sell the same to the Vendee.” 13. The above clause is in conflict with the plaint averment at paragraph No.6 of the plaint, that the appellants / plaintiffs have admitted the fact that when the so-called unregistered sale deed was being executed they were fully aware of the claim made by the State Government with regard to the title over entire part of Survey No.66, situated at Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. If the parties, viz., vendor and vendee, are aware of the litigation the vendor had with the State Government, there does not seem to be any reason why that would not have been reflected in the agreement of sale, particularly in the Agreement of Sale Clause (4) it is already reflected that the property in question is being free from all encumbrances and litigations. Another fact which is revealed from the proceedings is that the so-called registered Sale Deed executed in favour of the vendor way back on 12.06.1989 has been obtained by the appellants only in January, 2020 (copy of which has been obtained by the appellants), and that is the time when the two suits were filed by the Trial Court. Therefore, it appears that those documents have been obtained only for the purpose of filing of the suits. 14. From the aforesaid facts what is also reflected is that the appellants have also not anywhere in the deposition affidavit stated as to what mode of payment of sale transaction was made to the vendor, viz., Mr. B. Narayana Swamy. Therefore, it appears that those documents have been obtained only for the purpose of filing of the suits. 14. From the aforesaid facts what is also reflected is that the appellants have also not anywhere in the deposition affidavit stated as to what mode of payment of sale transaction was made to the vendor, viz., Mr. B. Narayana Swamy. Further, the appellants have also not cared to make a statement before the Trial Court as to whether such purchase of property by paying an amount of Rs.17,95,500/- in O.S.No.27 of 2020 and Rs.19,23,750/- in O.S.No.28 of 2020 was being reflected in the income tax returns, if any, by the appellants. All these aspects give rise to serious doubt insofar as the veracity of the alleged agreements of sale. Yet another aspect which raises serious doubt is the fact that the two agreements of sale involved in the two suits, viz., 09.04.1998 in O.S.No.27 of 2020 and 09.01.1999 in O.S.No.28 of 2020, specifically stated that the entire sale consideration mentioned in the preceding paragraphs having already been paid to the vendor, and that the vendor had also transferred the entire rights in the suit schedule property in favour of the appellants, yet from April, 1998 and in January, 1999, when the said agreements of sale were said to have been executed, both the appellants waited for well over a period of 10 years for filing of the instants suits before the Trial Court seeking for specific performance of the agreement of sale. No justification whatsoever is available on record as to what prevented the appellants from getting the property registered in their names earlier, or what prevented the appellants from even filing of a suit for specific performance within a period of three years, which is the normal period of limitation even for invoking the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Further, there is no cogent material adduced by the appellants to even show that they have made an effort on the earlier occasion for getting the sale deeds registered. Even the legal notice that was issued was only one which was issued in the year 2020, i.e., just preceding the period of filing of the above two suits. All this go to show that the appellants at no point of time were not at all interested in getting the unregistered sale deeds registered. 15. Even the legal notice that was issued was only one which was issued in the year 2020, i.e., just preceding the period of filing of the above two suits. All this go to show that the appellants at no point of time were not at all interested in getting the unregistered sale deeds registered. 15. It is by now well settled legal position that an unregistered sale deed has a very limited legal validity. It is also well settled legal position of law that an unregistered sale deed is not sufficient to prove ownership or title to a property. An unregistered sale deed also cannot be used to prove a sale by itself. It may be used as a piece of evidence substantiated with other cogent proof of agreement of sale having been executed genuinely between the parties. Even Section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 holds that an unregistered sale deed cannot be used as an evidence of proof of sale. 16. In the case on hand, the unregistered sale deeds also do not reveal the identification of the plots which have been purchased by the appellants in both the suits. It is for the aforesaid infirmities and doubts that has fallen in the mind of this Bench which forces us to state that since the respondents are set ex parte, the burden of proving the case all the more falls upon the appellants and therefore they have to bring in more clarity in their evidence and also more clarity to their pleadings, including the averments that are reflected in the so-called agreement of sale executed in favour of the appellants. 17. Having gone through the entire averments, pleadings and evidence and also the documents enclosed to the plaint, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have not been able to provide cogent, justifiable explanation to the doubts and suspicion narrated in the preceding paragraphs. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have not been able to make out a strong case calling for interference to the impugned judgments passed by the Trial Court while dismissing the above two suits. The appeals being devoid of merit, deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.