This second appeals by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore in R.A No. 42 of 1989 in confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Puttur in O.S. No. 36 of 1984.

2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 27-2-1981 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant 3 and for partition of plaint 'E' schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, they along with defendants 1 and 2 are governed by Hindu School of Mitakshara jaw The propositus one Vasudev Naik died in the year 1972 leaving behind plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiff 1 is the son and plaintiff 2 is the daughter of Vasudev Naik and defendant 1 is the wife and defendant 2 is the son of Vasudev Naik and their family had certain immovable properties as described in 'E' Schedule. In the year 1962 the suit Schedule 'C' properties were allotted to the branch of plaintiffs' father in the registered partition deed dated 1-9-1962 and as such, the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are each entitled for 5/12th share and 2nd plaintiff and 1st defendant are entitled for 1/12th share each in the entire properties on the death of Vasudev Naik. Plaintiff I was born on 4-4-1963 and plaintiff 2 was born on 29-9-1966 and at the time of death of Vasudev Naik both the sons were minors and the 1st defendant who was not aware of the worldly affairs being a innocent villager did not deal with the properties in a prudent manner and the 3rd defendant taking advantage of the same prevailed upon the 1st and 2nd defendants to execute the sale deed of the entire family properties which are morefully described in the 'E' schedule for a meager sum of Rs. 40,000/- by a registered sale deed dated 27-2-1981. As per the said document out of the sale price of Rs. 40,000/-, a sum of Rs 20,000/- was paid by the 3rd defendant to one Madhavan Nair and his wife Sarojini towards the consideration of alleged sale deed by then1 in favour of the 1st defendant

A Sum of Rs. 9,500/- said to have been paid earlier to the sale deed to the other defendants which is false and also a sum of Rs. 10,500/- said to have been paid to defendant 1 before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed and defendant 1 executed the sale deed as a guardian of the plaintiffs also. Stating that defendant 1 cannot alienate the plaintiffs share when they were minors without the permission of the Competent Court and that defendant 1 actually has not acted in the best interest of the plaintiffs and their properties and Caused loss to the plaintiffs in order to favour defendant 3 and the said sale deed is void and the act of defendants 1 and 2 are not prudent and the said sale deed is not acted upon as the defendant prevailed on defendants 1 and 2 to have an agreement for sale of the properties for a sum of Rs. 85,000/and he managed to obtain the signature of 1st plaintiff even though he was minor and that agreement also contained false recitals and defendant 3 posing himself as a well-wisher of the family by playing fraud got the sale deed excluded without paying any consideration and the market value of the property is not less than Rs. 1,25,000/- and the value of the house situated in the property is not less than Rs. 50,000/-, as such the sale deed executed in favour of defendant by defendants 1 and 2 is void and illegal child the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. Thus, plaintiff 1 and 2 have claimed their 5/12th and 1/12th share respectively in the 'B' Schedule properties. The suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2 and defendant 3 separately. According to defendants 1 and 2, defendant 3 prevailed upon defendants 1 and 2 and obtained the document by playing fraud and misrepresentation and the sale price is nominal and accordingly, supported the case of the plaintiffs. The contesting 3rd defendant resisted the suit denying all the avem