The defendants in O.S. No. 275 of 1987 on the file of the learned Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-VIth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, preferred this appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 08-09-1998, cancelling the earlier decree obtained in O.S. No. 1265 of 1984, dated 30-06-1986 with costs.

2. The parties are described as arrayed in the suit for felicity of expression.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff-M.D. Savani, respondent herein, that he purchased a site covered by premises bearing Municipal No. 14-3-251/1, admeasuring 1289 square yards, situated at Gosha Mahal, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, under a registered sale deed, dated 10-05-1960, from the defendant for consideration and since then he has been in possession of the property wherein he constructed a building surrounded by compound wall. He leased it out to M/s. Savani Transport Private Limited (for brevity "S.T.P.L."), in which, he was also a Director initially on a rent of Rs.500/- per month and later of Rs. 1,0001- per month. When the said Company committed default in payment of rent, he took appropriate steps for eviction. The defendant is his second cousin. Their paternal grandfathers are brothers. As such a number of business concerns were carried on by their family members which were in the nature of partnerships, trust etc., in 1982-83 certain disputes and misunderstandings arose between them and their family members. In order to keep good relations, several internal arrangements were made and various documents were executed between them. It was stipulated that he (the plaintiff) should give up his interest at Hyderabad and properties including the suit property and he and his family would be suitably compensated in order to avoid heavy costs and expenses for execution, registration etc. It was suggested that he should sign a plaint for cancellation of the sale deed dated 10-05-1960 relating to suit property provided he were to be compensated appropriately. In 1984 the value of the suit property was Rs.15,00,000/-. Accordingly, he signed the plaint and Vakalat on 29-09-1984. Accordingly, above papers were handed over to the defendant, who, told him that he would engage Sri Balachand, Advocate. It was only a make believe transaction never intended to contest. Simultaneously, a memo was also drafted. In view of the relationship between them, he never thought that the defendant would proceed to file the plaint without informing him. He was totally unaware of the subsequent events. Later, he came to know that the defendant filed this plaint numbered it as O.S. No. 1265 of 1984 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was decreed. It was communicated by the defendants son on 22-12-1986. Thereupon, he addressed a letter to Sri Balachand to inform about the proceedings. On that he could know that one Govind Bangdla, Advocate, attached to the office of Sri Balachand, filed the plaint and Sri K.K. Waugh ray, advocate, appeared on behalf of the defendant, filed written statement almost admitting the plaint allegations. In fact, the very plaint shows that it was barred by limitation. When he addressed a letter, he received certified copies of the proceedings. The decree was obtained by misrepresenting the facts and playing fraud on him. The 170 defendant obtained the decree in O.S.No.1265 of 1984, cancelling the sale deed in his favour. Therefore, he filed the suit for cancellation of the decree in O.S.No.1265 of 1984, dated 30-06-1986 and for injunction not to act on the said decree.

4. The 151 defendant resisted that suit denying that there was a stipulation as pleaded by the plaintiff that he should give up his interest and business etc., in Hyderabad. He stated that he has executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 35,0001- under registered sale deed dated 10-05-1960. In fact, the very plaintiff initiated the proceedings in O.S.No. 1265 of 1984. The pl