JUDGMENT :- This second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff being aggrieved of the reversing Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.1999 made by the learned Principal District Judge at Nalgonda, whereunder the appellate Court set aside the Decree and Judgment made by the learned District Munsif-Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda in O.S. No.447/91 dated 17.4.1995. 2. The 1st defendant - 1st respondent in this second appeal died and the legal representatives of the said 1st respondent were brought on record as respondents 3 to 5 by an order dated 5.10.2007 in S.AM.P. No.2580/2007. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit praying for the relief of cancel1ation of the registered lease deed No.2746/1987 by declaring the same as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and for possession of the plaint schedule property and for payment of rent and for other appropriate reliefs. The trial Court in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, D.W.1 to D.W.3, marked Ex.A1, EX.B.1 to Ex.B.8 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the Decree as prayed for and decreed the suit with costs with a direction to handover the vacant suit schedule land to the plaintiff within one month from the date of the judgment along with arrears of rent tm October, 1990 and for the rent of the remaining period, the plaintiff is at liberty to sue the 1st defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants carried the matter by way of appeal AS. No.56/95 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nalgonda and the appellate Court having formulated the points for consideration at para 8 recorded reasons commencing from paras 9 to 16 and ultimately al10wed the appeal dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, but directing the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal had been preferred. 4. This Court on 21.4.2000 admitted the second appeal on the strength of the substantial questions of law specified at ground No.26 and the said substantial questions of law read as hereunder: (1) Whether the appel1ate Court is entitled to set aside well-considered Judgment and Decree of the trial Court just because on same facts different conclusion can be arrived at? This Court on 21.4.2000 admitted the second appeal on the strength of the substantial questions of law specified at ground No.26 and the said substantial questions of law read as hereunder: (1) Whether the appel1ate Court is entitled to set aside well-considered Judgment and Decree of the trial Court just because on same facts different conclusion can be arrived at? (2) Whether appellate Court is right in presuming that money cannot be the criterion when transaction is between close relatives when there is no evidence to that effect? (3) Whether appellate Court can set aside Judgment and Decree of trial Court when there is no error committed by trial Court or at least without pointing out any error by trial Court? (4) Whether appellate Court can presume that witnesses on the side of appellant are enimical towards respondent No.1 only on the suggestion made to witnesses without any positive proof? (5) Whether appellate Court can presume that appellant is wise man just because he contested for Gram Panchayat Ward Elections and lost? (6) Whether appellate Court can presume that entire transaction is done only for the benefit of respondent No.1 and the money is not criteria? (7) Whether appellate Court can brush aside the evidence produced leading to the understanding that lease was meant only for 3 years at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per annum? (8) Whether appellate Court is right in holding EX.A.1 a valid document when the consideration is mere sham one? 5. An application S.A.M.P. No.2151/05 had been filed praying this Court to permit the appellant to add additional substantial question of law and the said question formulated reads as hereunder: "Whether the appellate Court is justified in setting aside the well-considered judgment of trial Court which set aside Ex.A.1 executed by appellant as the appellant is not acquainted with English language in which Ex.A.1 is drafted?" No counter-affidavit had been filed opposing this application. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that at the time of filing of the second appeal, substantial questions of law were framed vide ground No.26, but however, one important substantial question of law had not been framed by oversight. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that at the time of filing of the second appeal, substantial questions of law were framed vide ground No.26, but however, one important substantial question of law had not been framed by oversight. It is also stated that the so-called lease agreement EX.A.1 is drafted in English and the appellant does not know English and EX.A.1 also does not contain any recital that the contents of the document were explained to him in the language he knows i.e., Telugu. It is also stated that as the very issue in the suit is cancellation of EX.A.1 on the ground that the respondents had cheated the appellant taking advantage of the relationship and also the fact that the appellant does not know English. In the light of the same, the said substantial question of law also to be permitted to be raised in the present second appeal. In the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, this Court is inclined to allow the said application and accordingly, the application is hereby ordered. 6. Sri Rajashekar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out to the substantial questions of law, on the strength of which the second appeal initially had been admitted and also the substantial question of law which had been formulated by him by filing an application already referred to above and would maintain that the appellate Court totally erred in allowing the appeal by setting aside the well-considered judgment of the trial Court. The learned Counsel also pointed out that a finding had been recorded that the 2nd defendant in the suit had colluded with the Ist defendant and this finding was left undisturbed by the appellate Court and in the light of the same, the mere fact that the 2nd defendant also was an executant of EX.A.1 along with the plaintiff may not seriously alter the situation. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the very relief prayed for in the plaint would go to show that the said document - lease deed in controversy is not valid and binding on the plaintiff, may be to the extent of the interest of the plaintiff or even to the total extent covered by EX.A.1. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the very relief prayed for in the plaint would go to show that the said document - lease deed in controversy is not valid and binding on the plaintiff, may be to the extent of the interest of the plaintiff or even to the total extent covered by EX.A.1. The learned Counsel also further would maintain that in a case of this nature where it is not in controversy that P.W.1 does not know English at all, the burden is on the Ist defendant and it may be that one of the attestors of EX.A.1 not being in this world, when the other attestor is available, for reasons best known, the Ist defendant had not chosen to examine him. The learned Counsel also would further maintain that relating to the fact that the period agreed upon is only 3 years and not 30 years, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is available on record, the name of P.W.2 had been specifically averred in the plaint and the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 would go to show that certain others also were present and in this view of the matter, the non-mentioning of the name of P.W.3 at the earliest point of time in the pleading may not be taken as a serious lapse on the part of the plaintiff. The learned Counsel also would maintain that not only that P.W.1 has no knowledge about the contents of Ex.A.1, the further fact that for such prime land, a paultry sum of Rs.1,000/- cannot be fixed was made the ground by the Court of first instance and such well-considered findings had been disturbed by the appellate Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the defendants cheated him and obtained EX.A.1. Whether it is to be taken as a plea of fraud or a plea of misrepresentation, as the case may be, inasmuch as the facts and circumstances would go to show that the same had been established, the appellate Court is not justified in reversing such judgment, recording certain irrelevant findings and hence the second appeal to be allowed. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 7. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 7. Per contra, Sri Venkatram Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents would maintain that the relationship between the parties is not in serious dispute. The learned Counsel also would point out to the evidence of D.W.3 the 2nd defendant, and would maintain that here is a peculiar case where the 2nd defendant as D.W.3 supported the version of 1st defendant - D.W.1. When that being so and when the 2nd defendant also joined the execution of EX.A.1 along with the plaintiff - P.W.1, both being the joint owners or co-owners of the property, a suit of this nature filed by the plaintiff alone, that too impleading the 2nd defendant as a party and the said 2nd defendant not supporting him, would clearly go to show that the stand taken by the plaintiff - P.W.1 is totally an unsustainable stand. The learned Counsel in all fairness would maintain that one of the attestors of EX.A.1 - Kondal Reddy no doubt is no more and though the other attestor is available, both the parties had not chosen to examine the attestor. However, the learned Counsel would maintain that this would not seriously alter the situation for the reason that apart from the evidence of D.W.1, the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3 also is available on record, who had amply supported the version taken by D.W.1. All these facts had been considered by the appellate Court and clear findings had been recorded while reversing the judgment of the trial Court.• While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel also would point out that when both the parties had let-in evidence, the onus of proof or burden of proof may not be of much importance. Even otherwise, merely because the plaintiff does not know English, by that itself it cannot be inferred that the said plaintiff along with the 2nd defendant executed Ex.A.1 not knowing the contents of the document. Even otherwise, merely because the plaintiff does not know English, by that itself it cannot be inferred that the said plaintiff along with the 2nd defendant executed Ex.A.1 not knowing the contents of the document. Several of the circumstances which had been narrated in detail by the appellate Court and the conduct of P.W.1, if carefully scrutinized, it would definitely negative the stand taken by the plaintiff as P.W.1 The learned Counsel also further pointed out that P.W.2 and P.W.3 have nothing to do with Ex.A.1 and they had been thought of only for the purpose of explaining the stand taken by P.W.1 and in the light of the evidence available on record, it appears to be an afterthought. Hence viewed from any angle, in the light of the limitations imposed on this Court in re-appreciating the evidence under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not a fit matter to be interfered with. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 8. Heard the Counsel on record, perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the trial Court and the findings recorded by the appellate Court as well. 9. The substantial questions of law on the strength of which the second appeal had been admitted by this Court and also the further additional substantial question of law which had been formulated and permitted by this Court by allowing the application aforesaid already had been specified above. 10. For the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S. No.447/91 on the file of District Munsiff-jrj, Devarakonda. 11. The suit was instituted praying for the relief of cancellation of the registered lease deed, a copy of which had been marked as Ex.A.1, and also for certain other appropriate reliefs. 12. The case of the plaintiff is that he and second defendant purchased 15 guntas of dry land in Sy.No.145 of Godakondla from Dr. Sajjad Jaheer under document No.2178/86 of Sub-Registrar, Devarakonda. Before purchasing the land, the plaintiff and second defendant entered into an agreement to purchase the land jointly, and the plaintiff will take the eastern half portion and the second defendant will take western half of the said site. The said agreement was reduced into writing and subsequently, the sale deed has been obtained from Dr. Before purchasing the land, the plaintiff and second defendant entered into an agreement to purchase the land jointly, and the plaintiff will take the eastern half portion and the second defendant will take western half of the said site. The said agreement was reduced into writing and subsequently, the sale deed has been obtained from Dr. Sajjad Jaheer. After the purchase of the land, the first defendant approached the plaintiff for leasing out the said land to run Poultry Farm. As all the parties are related with each other, they agreed to lease out the land for a period of 3 years for a consideration of Rs.1,000/per annum. The said agreement was entered into in the presence of S. Yadi Reddy, K. Shekar and Likki Yadi Reddy. In order to enable the first defendant to obtain bank loan, Mall Branch, the plaintiff and second defendant agreed to execute lease deed in favour of the first defendant and get it registered. They did accordingly, on 9th October 1987, by executing a registered lease deed. The registered lease deed was prepared and typed in English by the defendant. The defendant represented the plaintiff that the lease deed is for 3 years and the rent is for Rs.1,000/- per annum. The plaintiff being not conversant with English and knowing only reading and writing ordinary Telugu, having full confidence and belief in the representation of the defendants and also as they are his close relations, the plaintiff affixed his signature on the lease deed and got it registered. He had no chance to know the game played by the defendants. Surprisingly, they got mentioned in the lease deed period of lease as 30 years and rent as Rs. 100/- per year. The misrepresentation came to the notice of the plaintiff on 10.12.1990 when the first defendant refused to handover the possession of the lease site to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not agree to extend the lease period beyond 3 years as he is not using the land to run poultry farm, but for raising vegetables and also as first defendant defaulted in payment of rent. The plaintiff demanded the first defendant to handover the possession of his half portion immediately after the period of lease. The first defendant disclosed that the lease period is for 30 years, and the rent is Rs.100/- and so saying he refused to vacate the site. The plaintiff demanded the first defendant to handover the possession of his half portion immediately after the period of lease. The first defendant disclosed that the lease period is for 30 years, and the rent is Rs.100/- and so saying he refused to vacate the site. Immediately, he enquired the second defendant and he also supported the first defendant. The matter was placed before the persons in whose presence lease agreement was entered into, but they expressed their inability due to the adament attitude of the defendants. Lease deed bearing document No.2716/87 was executed and registered by the plaintiff due to fraud, mischief and misrepresentation played by both the defendants, and therefore, the document is liable to be cancelled. 13. The first defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the 2nd defendant. It was averred that it is false that the plaintiff and second defendant entered into an agreement to the effect that the eastern half portion shall be taken by the plaintiff, and the western half portion by the 2nd defendant and it was reduced into writing. If really such an agreement written statement there, the same would have been mentioned in the sale deed. Further, even in the registered lease deed in favour of the first defendant it was not mentioned. The plaintiff has not disclosed any reason having mentioning this important material fact in the lease deed. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff in this regard is false. The plaintiff and second defendant are co-brothers-in-law and they are brothers in-law of the first defendant. The plaintiff is admitting that the land was leased out to first defendant to run a poultry farm. It is specifically denied that the lease is for 3 years and the rent is Rs.1,000/- per annum, and such an agreement was entered into in the presence of S. Yadi Reddy, K. Shekar and Likki Yadi Reddy. It is false to mention that the lease period of 30 years has been mentioned secretly. The plaintiff is well conversed and well experienced elderly man and he cannot be allowed to be mislead by the defendants. Only after understanding the contents of the document he signed before the Sub-Registrar of his tree will. When the document is registered, there will not be any scope for misleading the executant. There is no misrepresentation or manipulation as alleged by the plaintiff. Only after understanding the contents of the document he signed before the Sub-Registrar of his tree will. When the document is registered, there will not be any scope for misleading the executant. There is no misrepresentation or manipulation as alleged by the plaintiff. All this is invented mala fidely to nullify the lease deed entered into. It is false to contend that the plaintiff came to know about the period of lease as 30 years when the defendant refused to handover the possession, and that he enquired the second defendant. The suit is undervalued. The plaintiff alleges to have purchased the property at Rs.10,900/-, and the lease deed executed also disclosed Rs. 10,000/-. The market value is more high and it is increasing day-to-day. All these facts have been suppressed and the suit has been undervalued. The suit is bad under the provisions of the Limitation Act. The lease agreement is dated 9.10.1987. and the suit ought to have been filed within one year from the said date. Due to the differences that arose between the parties on account of other personal matters, the plaintiff has chosen to file this suit showing false averments and illusory dates to keep out of the Limitation Act. The schedule site of 15 guntas was originally belonging to the father of this first defendant and it was sold to Dr. Sajjad Jaheer in the year 1981 in an extent of 30 quintals. Subsequently Perika Jangaiah raised some objection with regard to title and the matter was filed before the Hon 'ble Court. On active persuasion and efforts on behalf of the first defendant, the said litigation was settled and a decree was passed in favour of Dr. Sajjad Jaheer. As a token of gratitude Dr. Sajjad Jaheer offered to sell half extent to the first defendant at reasonable price, but the defendant did not have money to purchase the same. So he approached his sisters Nannuri Yadamma and Lalli Kousalya. The plaintiff is the husband of Yadamma and second defendant is the nephew of the first defendant. Sajjad Jaheer. As a token of gratitude Dr. Sajjad Jaheer offered to sell half extent to the first defendant at reasonable price, but the defendant did not have money to purchase the same. So he approached his sisters Nannuri Yadamma and Lalli Kousalya. The plaintiff is the husband of Yadamma and second defendant is the nephew of the first defendant. The first defendant agreed to get the sale deed executed in favour of the both his brothers in-law and sister's son and it was also agreed by them that they will give the land on lease for a period of 30 years to enable the first defendant to run a poultry farm to get over the economic crisis. Accordingly, the sale deed was obtained in the name of plaintiff and second defendant, and they have later on executed the lease document No.2747/87 in favour of the first defendant. The first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the land. Moreover, the plaintiff is a resident of Thommadipalli, and the second defendant is a resident of Ranga Reddy District. It is specifically agreed in the lease document that the first defendant is empowered to raise any type of construction and structures and sheds to meet the necessities for running a poultry farm. Accordingly, Gram Panchayat permission written statement taken on 4.11.1988 submitting the lease deed document and the first defendant raised structure with a tin sheet shed over 160 Sq.yds. on the north-western comer and running poultry farm. The first defendant also approached Andhra Bank and obtained loan of Rs.l,20,000/- for running the poultry farm basing on lease document. The plaintiff stood as guarantor and surety for the said loan. The Bank authorities considered the loan as the lease period is for a long period of 30 years. Had it been for only 3 years, they would not have considered the loan at all. The plaintiff also approached the Bank authorities to pursuade them to sanction loan being fully aware of the terms of the lease deed. The plaintiff cannot withdraw now and contend that the lease is for 3 years. The lease document has been executed in the presence of two attestors. There was no agreement in the presence of Yadi Reddy, K. Sudhakar and Likki Yadi Reddy. The two attestors before the lease document are Kondal Reddy and Bhadraiah. The plaintiff cannot withdraw now and contend that the lease is for 3 years. The lease document has been executed in the presence of two attestors. There was no agreement in the presence of Yadi Reddy, K. Sudhakar and Likki Yadi Reddy. The two attestors before the lease document are Kondal Reddy and Bhadraiah. Yadi Reddy, Shekar Reddy and Lilli Yadi Reddy are close relatives and associates of the plaintiff and the plaintiff want to take advantage of the relationship. S. Yadi Reddy is further enimical with this first defendant since the times of their fathers. There are many disputes. Likki Yadi Reddy is not at all a resident of Mall Village and he is closely related to the plaintiff. He is the son of plaintiff's co-son-in-law. The plaintiff has been supporting him in his family disputes. Similarly, Shaker Reddy is also a close associate of the plaintiff. As such, there is no truth in the contention of the plaintiff that an agreement was made in their presence. This first defendant is never a defaulter in payment of lease amount. He has been regularly sending lease amount to the plaintiff and he was refusing purposefully. After the lease document, some family disputes arose between the first defendant and his brother Mohan Reddy. The plaintiff began to side Mohan Reddy and became enimical to the first defendant. Keeping this in mind, the plaintiff filed a suit with a false claim for recovery of Rs.9,000/- before Sub-Court with the son of Mohan Reddy and began harassing the first defendant. In addition to that present suit is also filed. Having mala fide intention, the plaintiff started refusing to receive the Money Order sent by this defendant. Therefore, this defendant has deposited Rs.250/- in his Bank Account, as the lease amount for 5 years towards the share of the plaintiff @ Rs.50/- per month. The second defendant has been receiving every Postal Money Order. The connected documents are filed with the written statement. This defendant is not a wilful defaulter. The amount has been deposited in S.B.A/c.No.1622 in Andhra Bank, Mall Branch and has been accepted by the plaintiff. The boundaries are mentioned for schedule land to have unlawful gain. The defendant is running poultry farm spending huge amounts and construction of shed and other necessary structures. This defendant is not a wilful defaulter. The amount has been deposited in S.B.A/c.No.1622 in Andhra Bank, Mall Branch and has been accepted by the plaintiff. The boundaries are mentioned for schedule land to have unlawful gain. The defendant is running poultry farm spending huge amounts and construction of shed and other necessary structures. The plaintiff cannot have any objection to raise vegetables between the sheds which is left as a waste land It will not amount to violation of the terms of lease. Out of jealousy and to dispossess these defendants, the suit has been instituted. The defendant has absolute right to enjoy the property for the entire lease period of 30 years. The suit is not maintainable and it may be dismissed. 14. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Court of first instance: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered lease deed as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of suit land from D.1? (3) Whether the defendant No.1 is liable to pay rentals as prayed for? (4) Whether the registered lease deed is valid one? (5) To what relief? 15. Before the Court of first instance the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 and 3 also had been examined. Ex.A.1 - copy of lease deed had been marked. On behalf of defendants, the 1st defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and the 2nd defendant himself examined as D.W.3 and the another witness D.W.2 the Officer of Andhra Bank also had been examined. The Court of first instance recorded certain reasons and came to the conclusion that since the document in question - the lease deed, the original of Ex.A.1 being in an unknown language to the plaintiff, in the light of the evidence available on record, the first defendant was unable to discharge the burden and the plaintiff was successful in establishing the element of plea of fraud or plea of misrepresentation, as the case may be, and further came to the conclusion that the paultry rent fixed is also a suspicious circumstance and further relied on the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 as well apart from the evidence of P.W.1 and ultimately decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants carried the matter by way of appeal A.S.No.56/95 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda and the appellate Court at para 8 formulated the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered lease deed and possession of suit hind? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for payment of rent as prayed for? (3) To what relief? The appellate Court appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record, recorded findings while answering point No.1 at paras 9 to 15 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the registered lease deed executed by the plaintiff and 2nd defendant is perfectly valid and the 1st defendant is entitled to have possession of the schedule land for a period of 30 years as mentioned in the original of Ex.A.1 and hence the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the plaint. While answering point No.2 at para 16, the appellate Court recorded certain reasons and came to the conclusion that the 1st defendant is not obliged to pay the rent at Rs.1,000/- per annum and accordingly while answering point No.3, allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal had been preferred. 16. The respective stands taken by the parties in the pleadings, the issues settled, the findings recorded by the trial Court and the findings recorded by the appellate Court in nutshell already had been specified above. Both the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court had relied on certain decisions which had been cited by the respective parties as well. Though several substantial questions of law had been pointed out and elaborate submissions had been made by the Counsel on record, the crucial question which had been argued in elaboration is validity and the binding nature of the original of EX.A.1 on the principal ground that P.W.1, one of the executants, cannot read or write English and the document being in English, the said contents had not been read over to him and such recital is not there in the document and hence, the same is not binding. Incidentally, certain other questions also had been argued in elaboration in addition thereto in the light of the evidence available on record. 17. P. W.1 deposed that himself and D.2 purchased Ac.O.15 guntas of land from Dr. Incidentally, certain other questions also had been argued in elaboration in addition thereto in the light of the evidence available on record. 17. P. W.1 deposed that himself and D.2 purchased Ac.O.15 guntas of land from Dr. Sajjad under a registered sale deed and it is in Sy.No.145 and this witness also explained the boundaries and also this witness deposed about the understanding between himself and D.2 that he was taking the land on the eastern side i.e., on the road side, on the payment of 2/3rd of amount and accordingly he paid 2/3rd of the total consideration to the vendor and that D.2 paid only 1/3rd amount to the vendor on the land on western side. At the time of purchase, the said understanding was oral and after purchase, they drafted a Deed on stamped paper to that extent. D.2 is working as a Teacher and the said original Deed is with D.2 and Xerox copy was given to him. After one year after this understanding they let out the said land to D.1 for the purpose of erecting Poultry Farm in it for a period of 3 years at the rent of Rs.1,1000/per annum. The said lease agreement was entered into in the presence of Sripuram Yadagiri, Konduri Shekar and Likki Yadagiri. The said lease agreement was entered at the house of D.1. Accordingly, after 7 days they executed a registered deed in favour of D.1. P.W.1 also deposed that the said lease deed was written in English language and it was got drafted by D.I and he simply went to the Registration Office and put his signature on it. He was not able to read and write English. Since he does not know English language, he signed on the said Deed purely believing D.1 and he is his own brother-in-law. D.1 did not pay any rent for three years and after three years he sent Rs.100/- only through Money Order and the same was refused by him, as the said amount is not according to the lease agreement. This witness, no doubt, also deposed that after 3 years this witness demanded to handover the possession of the land. Then D.1 stated that the lease period is 30 years and not for 3 years and the rent is only Rs.100/- per annum and not Rs.1,000/-. This witness, no doubt, also deposed that after 3 years this witness demanded to handover the possession of the land. Then D.1 stated that the lease period is 30 years and not for 3 years and the rent is only Rs.100/- per annum and not Rs.1,000/-. Then P.W.1 requested the elders in whose presence the lease was held to go and enquire with D.1. They went and asked the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant stated that it is between himself and his brother-in-law and the said elders were in no way concerned with the matter. This witness also deposed that D.1 also joined hands with 0.2 and he is not in talking terms with him. Sripuram Yadi Reddy, who was present at the time of lease agreement, is the son of maternal-aunt of D.1. Likki Yadi Reddy is another sister's son of D.1. Thus, D.1 deceived him in getting the lease deed registered in his favour taking advantage of the relationship. The certified copy of the lease deed was filed into the Court and the same is marked as EX.A.1 and hence the cancellation was prayed for and also the payment of rent had been prayed for. In the cross-examination this witness deposed that he is one of the elders in the village and he contested as a Member of Gram Panchayat. This witness also deposed that it is true that the Ist defendant had obtained bank loan after the said lease deed was executed and it is true that he stood as guarantor for the loan obtained by D.1 and he had not given any notice to Raghuram Reddy for the original document. No legal notice was issued to the Ist defendant for vacating the premises but he asked him to vacate the premises through elders i.e., P.W.2. He came to know that the loan was for more than Rs.1,00,000/- and he does not know the rate of instalment per month. This witness also deposed about other suits. This witness no doubt deposed that it is not true to suggest that there was some dispute between himself and the 1st defendant in connection with selling of plots and that after the said dispute, he started supporting the elder brother of the 1st defendant and till such time he was supporting D.1. This witness also deposed about other suits. This witness no doubt deposed that it is not true to suggest that there was some dispute between himself and the 1st defendant in connection with selling of plots and that after the said dispute, he started supporting the elder brother of the 1st defendant and till such time he was supporting D.1. This witness also deposed that it is not true to suggest that P.W.1 has been utilizing the help of Siripuram Yadi Reddy, Konduru Shekar and Lilli Yadagiri who are having disputes with the defendants. This witness also deposed that it is true to say that he filed one suit against the 1st defendant for payment of Rs.9,000/- which was paid by him towards bank loan obtained by the 1st defendant. The said suit was dismissed and the appeal is pending. This witness also deposed that he does not know if the term of the loan granted by bank is for 30 years. Further this witness deposed that it is not true to suggest that as the land originally belonged to his father-in-law and that himself and D.2 knowingly let out the suit premises for Rs.100/- per month. 18. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 had been adduced, who no doubt deposed about the lease agreement prior to the entering into of EX.A.1 and supported the version of P.W.1 to the effect that the term agreed upon was three years. 19. As against this evidence, the evidence of D.W.1 the 1st defendant, D.W.3 the 2nd defendant and D.W.2 - the Bank Officer is available on record. 20. The specific stand taken by D.W.1 is that he had taken the plaint schedule property on lease for 30 years in October, 1987 From the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and the lease amount is Rs.100/- per annum. The document was registered. That was executed by the plaintiff and second defendant. He deposited that document in Andhra Bank and obtained loan. The suit schedule land has been mortgaged in the bank. The plaintiff and second defendant have signed on the said document, and the plaintiff and Kandal Reddy stood as guarantors for the loan amount. Kandal Reddy attested the lease document also. He is now no more. He took Rs.1,20,000/as loan for 5 years renewable upto 30 years. The suit schedule land has been mortgaged in the bank. The plaintiff and second defendant have signed on the said document, and the plaintiff and Kandal Reddy stood as guarantors for the loan amount. Kandal Reddy attested the lease document also. He is now no more. He took Rs.1,20,000/as loan for 5 years renewable upto 30 years. I He erected a shed for poultry farm and constructed a house for his residence in schedule site. He obtained Gram Panchayat permission for construction of both. Plaintiff knows all these things, and he himself advised D.W.1. Originally, the schedule land was belonging to his father and he sold the same to Dr. Sajjad Jaheer. In turn, Dr. Sajjad Jaheer sold the same to plaintiff and second defendant on the efforts of D.W.1. There was some disputes between Perika Jangaiah and Dr. Sajjad Jaheer, and the said dispute was settled with the efforts of D.W.1 and therefore the doctor offered to sell the land to D.W.1, but as he was not having money, he requested his brother-in law plaintiff to purchase the same. The plaintiff took the help of D.2 and both of them purchased it. Then his brother-in law plaintiff and second defendant and his father advised D.W.1 to erect poultry shed and they expressed their willingne5.s in giving the land on lease at cheaper rate and he accepted the same. The plaintiff also informed that he will stood as guarantor for the loan for establishing the poultry. The Bank Manager requested D.W.1 and the plaintiff to let out the suit premises for 30 years to enable D.W.1 to get loan, accordingly the lease deed was drafted for 30 years. There was cordial relationship between D.W.1 and plaintiff till the bank loan was obtained and poultry shed as well as house have been erected. Then misunderstanding erupted between them due to partition of ancestral properties and selling D.W.1's share of property. In that course, the plaintiff has taken the side of D.W.1 's brother. So, the plaintiff has filed the suit. At the time of purchasing schedule land, the plaintiff and second defendant contributed equal amounts. There were disputes between himself and Siripuram Yadi Reddy as their lands are adjacent to each other. There were some misunderstandings between him and P.W.2. P.W.1 gave one plot to P.W.3, and therefore, P.W.3 gave evidence against him. The lease deed was drafted by the plaintiff. There were disputes between himself and Siripuram Yadi Reddy as their lands are adjacent to each other. There were some misunderstandings between him and P.W.2. P.W.1 gave one plot to P.W.3, and therefore, P.W.3 gave evidence against him. The lease deed was drafted by the plaintiff. D.W.1 was leaving all the matters to plaintiff with regard to bank loan. He is paying rent to the plaintiff and second defendant regularly. The rents sent by him through Money Order in a sum of Rs.250/- was returned and it represented the rent for 5 years. The second defendant Raghuma Reddy was receiving lease amount regularly. Ex.B.1, Ex.B.6 and Ex.B. 7 are the receipts for depositing the amount into Andhra Bank. In the cross-examination he has stated that himself and P.W.1 purchased the stamps in the name of D.W.1, and on the very day of purchasing the stamps, the registration of lease deed has taken place. Himself and P.W.1 were present till the registration was over. Before presenting the said lease deed before Sub Registrar, the contents of the lease deed were read over by the registration staff. The plaintiff himself brought the signature of Raghuma Reddy on lease deed. He did not come to Registration Office. 21. It is true that D. W.1 admitted that his brother-in-law - P.W.1 does not know English. This admission had been pointed out and arguments had been advanced in elaboration on this aspect. While appreciating the case of this nature, the evidence available on record to be appreciated in toto. As already specified supra, one attestor of the original of Ex.A.1 is no more and the other attestor was not examined. 22. D.W.3 who is also the co-executant of Ex.A.1 along with P.W.1 narrated in detail what had happened and how the lands had been purchased and the contribution made in relation thereto and this witness also deposed that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant came to him and requested him to let out the said land and they came to Medipally (v) and they asked him for 30 years rent and he had objected for the same, but both of them told him that if the lease is 30 years then only they will get loan. He had not objected for Rs.1 00/- rent per annum as they are all one family members and closely related. Then D.1 obtained loan. He had not objected for Rs.1 00/- rent per annum as they are all one family members and closely related. Then D.1 obtained loan. The said land was mortgaged in the bank. He went to bank where the Bank Manager enquired with him and obtained his signatures. The Field Officer came to the village and enquired with him and he too obtained his signature on one paper. There was no agreement about lease in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and Siripuram Yadi Reddy at any point of time. This witness specifically deposed that the land was not divided so far and this witness also deposed that they had not cheated or played fraud on the plaintiff. This witness was cross-examined at length and several suggestions put to this witness had been specifically denied. 23. D.W.2 is a crucial witness who worked as Manager, Andhra Bank, Mall Branch from March 1985 to July, 1990, and he knows the plaintiff and the defendants. The 1st defendant obtained loan from the bank for the purpose of poultry. The plaintiff and the defendants were coming to the bank for the purpose of loan for running the poultry farm, therefore he knows them. One document for letting out the land by plaintiff in favour of the defendant was filed before the bank authorities for granting loan. On the basis of the said lease deed and on mortgaging the said lease land and other lands of the defendant, they sanctioned loan to the 1st defendant. They had informed that the lease period must be longer period. The said lease period was 30 years according to the said document. Kista Reddy told him that the land is mortgaged for 30 years at Rs.100/- per annum. The plaintiff has accepted the lease amount of Rs.100/- per annum when he enquired about the said amount. He casually enquired as to why the sum of Rs.100/- is fixed as rent, as it appears very less. The plaintiff told him that in order to fulfil the terms and conditions of lease, it was mentioned as Rs. 100/-. At the time of presentation of document, the plaintiff written statement present along with the defendant and during discussion, he came to know that the lease period is for 30 years and that the plaintiff has informed to them that the land was let out for 30 years. 100/-. At the time of presentation of document, the plaintiff written statement present along with the defendant and during discussion, he came to know that the lease period is for 30 years and that the plaintiff has informed to them that the land was let out for 30 years. Before registering the lease deed, both parties came to him and then they advised for letting the land for longer period on lease for sanctioning of loan. The plaintiff also guarantor for the said loan. Another guarantor was S. Kondal Reddy, who is no more. He can identify the signature of the said Kondal Reddy as he was customer of their Bank. On their enquiry, the plaintiff has revealed that he has willingly executed the lease document for 30 years for Rs.100/- per annum. The said lease document is in the bank. Several specific questions and answers also had been elicited. 24. This evidence of D.Ws.2 and 3 apart from the evidence of D.W.1 had been strongly relied on by the appellate Court. EX.B.1 to EX.B.6 are the receipts, EX.B.7 is the counter-folio of the Andhra Bank dated 5.8.1992 and Ex.B.8 is the plaint copy in O.S. No.25/94 on the file of Sub-Judge, Nalgonda. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, 1999 (4) ALD 57 (SC) = (1999) 3 SCC 722 , wherein the limitations of interference in a second appeal in the light of the language of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been dealt with. Further reliance was placed on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. and others, (1994) I SCC I, where the judgment or decree obtained by fraud and the meaning of fraud had been discussed by the Apex Court. Strong reliance was placed on R.J. Gounder v. T. V. Elaiya, AIR 1972 Mad. 336 ; Kwamin Bassayin v. Bendentu II, AIR 1937 PC 274; Guljan Bibi v. Naziruddin Mia, AIR 1975 Gau. 30 ; and Dattatreya v. Rangnath, AIR 1971 SC 2548 and certain submissions were made that when a document is in unknown language to the executant, the burden is on the party who intends to rely on such document to establish the same. 30 ; and Dattatreya v. Rangnath, AIR 1971 SC 2548 and certain submissions were made that when a document is in unknown language to the executant, the burden is on the party who intends to rely on such document to establish the same. Further• reliance was placed on the aspect of burden of proof in the context of misrepresentation which had been dealt with in Kuppuswami Chettiar v. A.S.P.A. Arumugam Chettiar and another, AIR 1967 SC 1395 . Reliance was placed on Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1971 , where the distinction between the burden of proof and the onus of proof had been dealt with. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Kalwa Devadattam and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1964 SC 880 , wherein the Apex Court at Para 11 observed as hereunder: "About the title of the plaintiff." to Items 46 to 51 in the schedule annexed to the plaint the High Court disagreed with the trial Court. These properties were purchased n the names of two of three plaintiffs by the sale deed Ex.A.230 dated March 15, 1944. The consideration of the sale deed written statement Rs.23,500/- of which Rs.5,O 19/- had been paid in advance in four instalments before March 15, 1944, and the balance of Rs.18,481/ - was paid before the Sub-Registrar to the vendors who conveyed the properties to Devadattam and Devarayulu two of the three plaintiffs acting by their mother Narayanamma as their guardian. The properties having been purchased in the names of the two plaintiffs the burden prima facie lay upon the Taxing Authorities to establish that the sale deed was taken for and on behalf of the joint family or with the aid of joint family funds. Evidence was led by both the sides to support their respective versions. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs, case that their grandmother Seshamma provided the consideration was not proved, but there was also no evidence to show that the consideration was provided by the joint family, and as the burden of proof lay upon the union their case must fail. The High Court however held that the burden which lay upon the union to prove that the properties were purchased out of the joint family funds was duly discharged. The High Court however held that the burden which lay upon the union to prove that the properties were purchased out of the joint family funds was duly discharged. The question of onus probandi is certainly important in the early stages of a case. It may also assume importance where no evidence at all is led on the question in dispute by either side; in such a contingency the party on whom the onus lies to prove a certain fact must fail. Where however evidence has been led by the contesting parties on the question in issue, abstract consideration of onus are out of place; truth or otherwise of the case must always be adjudged on the evidence led by the parties." Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the apex Court in M. Rangasamy v. Rangammal and others, 2003 (6) SCC 30, wherein the interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a case of plea of undue influence in relation to Settlement Deeds had been dealt with. 25. There cannot be any doubt or controversy relating to the fact that when the document is in unknown language to a party - the executant, the other party who intends to take advantage of such document may have to establish the same. The particulars or the details to be mentioned in the case of the plea of fraud or the plea of misrepresentation as the case may be in the respective pleadings as specified under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure need not be re-emphasized. In the present case, the following are certain of the essential to be noted: (1) P.W.1 - the executant does not know English. (2) The 2nd defendant - D.W.3 is a co-executant of EX.A.1 along with P.W.1 and a co-owner as well. (3) It is no doubt true that it is the case of P.W.1 that the 2nd defendant is sailing and colluding with the 1st defendant. (4) The fact that P.Ws.2 and 3 are unconcerned with EX.A.1 transaction and they had been examined to establish some alleged discussion relating to the period prior to EX.A.1 transaction also is not in controversy. (5) The close relationship between the parties also is not in dispute. (4) The fact that P.Ws.2 and 3 are unconcerned with EX.A.1 transaction and they had been examined to establish some alleged discussion relating to the period prior to EX.A.1 transaction also is not in controversy. (5) The close relationship between the parties also is not in dispute. (6) There is some evidence to show that originally the property belonged to the family of the Ist defendant and subsequent thereto ultimately under the circumstances explained by plaintiff - P.W.1 initially with a view to help the 1st defendant/his brother in-law, had entered into this transaction. (7) The evidence of D.W.3 is clear and categorical that both P. W. I and D.W.1 approached him and requested that the lease deed to be executed for a period of 30 years. (8) Apart from the evidence of D.W.3, the evidence of D.W.2 also is available on record, the Bank Officer who had supported the version of D.W.1 and explained under what circumstances this 30 years period had been specified in the document. (9) It is also not in dispute that Kondal Reddy is no more and though the other attestor is alive, the said attestor was not examined by either of the parties. 26. It is also pertinent to note that while obtaining loan, P.W.1 also accompanied D.W.1 and stood as guarantor for securing the loan. In the backdrop of the essentials specified supra, now it has to be seen whether the findings recorded by the appellate Court suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in the present second appeal. The mere fact that an admission was made by D.W.1 that P.W.1 does not know English, by that itself cannot be taken when other voluminous evidence is available on record that P.W.I had no knowledge about the contents of the document. Even otherwise predominantly these findings are findings on questions of fact recorded by the appellate Court on appreciation of the evidence available on record. Several of the circumstances which would clearly go to show, inclusive of the conduct of P.W.1 had been dealt within elaboration and the stand taken by P.W.1 that by either playing fraud or playing misrepresentation, this document Ex.A.1 had been obtained had been disbelieved. Apart from this aspect, there is yet another crucial aspect - the plaintiff had not prayed for cancellation of the document, the original of Ex.A.1, so far as it relates to his share. Apart from this aspect, there is yet another crucial aspect - the plaintiff had not prayed for cancellation of the document, the original of Ex.A.1, so far as it relates to his share. It is pertinent to note that the 2nd defendant, the other executant – co-owner of the property is not willing for the same and in fact, the 2nd defendant is confirming that both P.W.1 and this D.W.3 executed the original of Ex.A.1 for a period of 30 years. Even on this ground, this Court is of the opinion that the relief prayed for by the plaintiff cannot be granted and hence this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the findings recorded by the appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality whatsoever. Accordingly, the said findings are hereby confirmed. 27. The second appeal shall stand dismissed. However, in view of the close relationship between the parties, let the parties bear their own costs.