1. These three appeals are preferred against common judgment dated 23-12-2010 in A.S.Nos.9, 8 & 7 of 2009 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy wherein common judgment dated 05-12-2008 in O.S.No.588/2002, O.S.No.587/2002 & O.S.No.127/2003 was confirmed.

2. Appellant herein filed O.S.No.127/2003 & O.S.No.588/2002 for the reliefs that registered sale deed dated 24-06-2002 i.e., document No.3815/2002 is null and void and to restrain the respondent herein by way of permanent injunction. Respondents herein filed O.S.No.587/2002 to declare the cancellation deed dated 11-09-2002 under document No.5877/2002 as null and void, to direct District Registrar (Registering Authority), Sanga Reddy, Medak, to cancel the cancellation dated 11-09-2002 under Document No.5877/2002 and a perpetual injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering with respondent’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

3. All the three suits are clubbed and joint trial was conducted and evidence was recorded in O.S.No.587/2002. On behalf of respondent herein, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and documents Exs.A1 to A13 are marked and on behalf of appellant herein D.Ws.1 to 5 are examined and documents Exs.B1 to B49 are marked. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court decreed O.S.No.587/2002 filed by respondents herein and dismissed the suits in O.S.No.588/2002 & O.S.No.127/2003 filed by appellant herein. Aggrieved by the dismissal of these three suits, the appellant herein filed A.S.No.7/2009 against judgment in O.S.No.127/2003, A.S.No.8/2009 against judgment in O.S.No.587/2002 & A.S.No.9/2009 against judgment in O.S.No.588/2002 and the appellate Court by a common judgment dated 23-12-2010 dismissed all the appeals. Aggrieved by which, these second appeals i.e., S.A.No.729/2011 against judgment in A.S.No.9/2009, S.A.No.753/2011 against judgment in A.S.No.8/2009 & S.A.No.767/2011 against judgment in A.S.No.7 of 2009 are preferred

4. The Parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in these appeals for convenience sake.

5. Contentions of both parties in brief are as follows:-

6. According to appellant, he purchased suit property from one P. Madhav Reddy through a registered sale deed dated 25-04-2002 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Appellant had acquaintance with the respondent since six years prior to the suit as he is in the advertising field, whereas the respondent herein is a movie artist. According to appellant, the respondent gained total confidence of the appellant and his wife and made them to believe that the differences between appellant and his wife are due to the schedule property, which is not in accordance with Vastu and convinced them that the schedule property should be sold. The appellant was not interested to sell the property as it was purchased for his personal benefit. Respondent was also present at the time of negotiations with the vendor of the appellant and he is well aware of the fact that it was purchased for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and the sale deed was made for Rs.87,000/- only. According to appellant, there was an agreement between himself and the respondent for sale of the property, according to which, the respondent agreed to pay Rs.12,00,000/- within one month from the date of registration and due to the confidence on the respondent, the appellant executed sale deed mentioning the sale consideration as Rs.81,000/-, but the appellant has not received a single pie from the respondent and as the respondent did not pay the sale consideration as agreed, the appellant executed a cancellation deed dated 11-09-2000 under document No.5877/2002, but as he was advised that he should seek for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24-06-2002 under document No.3815/2002, he filed O.S.No.588/2002. It is also contended by appellant though there was a recital in the sale deed as to delivery of possession, no such delivery is e