JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Kamireddy Divya, learned counsel and Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, along with learned counsel Sri Sumanth Amirapu in respective appeal and cross objection.

2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C) has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.197 of 2009, on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada being aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2015.

I. FACTS:

1. O.S.No.197 of 2009:

i) Plaintiff’s case:

3. The suit O.S.No.197 of 2009 giving rise to the present appeal, was filed for declaration that the plaintiff Chennupathi Naga Venkata Krishna was the absolute owner of Items I to III of the plaint schedule-'A' properties and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties after setting aside/cancelling the compromise decree/order dated 07.07.1995 passed in I.A.No.3857 of 1995 in previously filed O.S.No.552 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada, being illegal, void and contrary to law.

4. The prayer made in O.S.No.197 of 2009 reads as under:

"Therefore, the plaintiff prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant:

i) For declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint 'A' schedule properties and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint 'A' schedule property from the hands of the defendant by setting aside/cancelling decree dated 07.07.1995 inI.A.No.3857 of 1995 in O.S.No.552 of 1994 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge Court, Vijayawada, as it is illegal, void and contrary to law,

ii) For costs of this suit; and 

iii) For such other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity."

5. One Chennupathi Kesava Rao was married to Chennupathi Pushpavathi. They were not having issues. Chennupathi Kesava Rao married Chennupathi Manikyamba @ Mani on 02.10.1987 as per the Hindu tradition and customs. The plaintiff-appellant Chennupathi Naga Venkata Krishna is their son born on 01.10.1988. Chennupathi Kesava Rao died on 31.05.1990. The respondent Chennupathi Jagan Mohan, the defendant in the suit is the elder brother's son of Chennupathi Kesava Rao. Chennupathi Kesava Rao died intestate. At the time of his death Chennupathi Pushpavathi (wife) and Ravamma, (mother) of Chennupathi Kesava Rao and plaintiff were alive.

6 In O.S.No.197 of 2009, the plaintiff's further case was that taking the advantage of the death of Chennupathi Kesava Rao, the defendant in contacts with Chennupathi Pushpavathi started managing the estate of Chennupathi Kesava Rao. The plaintiff was minor. The plaintiff's mother Chennupathi Manikyamba @ Mani had studied only upto 7^th Class. The defendant taking the advantage of the old age of Ravamma, by playing fraud and mis- representation obtained signatures on some papers under the pretext of providing maintenance to Ravamma and Chennupathi Pushpavathi. Plaintiff's further case was that the maternal grand- father of the plaintiff representing as plaintiff's guardian and next friend, filed O.S.No.552 of 1994 which was managed by the defendant, in which the compromise dated 07.07.1995 was got recorded. He pleaded that all the records in O.S.No.552 of 1994 were with the maternal grandfather and the same were misplaced. Subsequently, the plaintiff's mother Manikyamba @ Mani obtained the certified copies of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.552 of 1994. The plaintiff after attaining the majority became aware about all these facts and filed the present O.S.No.197 of 2009 to set aside the compromise decree passed in I.A.No.3857 of 1995 in O.S.No.552 of 1994 and for other reliefs within the period of limita