1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. Suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and for consequential reliefs.

2. Plaintiffs case can be briefly stated as follows: Plaintiffs, first defendant and Santhakumari are the children of fourth defendant. Plaint schedule property was obtained by Adichan Nadar, father of the fourth defendant, under partition deed of the year 1079. They are Hindu Nadars governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. Second defendant is the husband of the first defendant. The property obtained by Adichan Nadar devolved on the fourth defendant and he was in possession of the same as Manager of the joint family. Plaintiffs obtained right over the properties of the joint family by their birth. On 13.3.1975 fourth defendant representing himself as the sole owner of the property, executed a gift deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiffs, properties are co-parcenary properties and hence fourth defendant is not competent to execute any document. Consequently first defendant did not get possession of the property. Later fourth defendant cancelled the gift deed and plaintiffs are in possession of the property and getting income therefrom. Defendants 1 and 2 executed sale deed in favour of the third defendant. However, third defendant did not get any title to the property since he is not a bona fide purchaser. On the strength of the sale deed third defendant attempted to trespass upon the property. Suit was instituted stating that in case court finds that third defendant is in possession of the plaint schedule properties plaintiffs may be allowed to recover the same from him with mesne profits. They also prayed for partition and separate allotment of their share in the plaint schedule properties.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement contended that gift deed was valid. According to them, plaintiffs and defendants are all Christians and not Hindus. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are under the guardianship of the father of the fourth defendant and are residing with them. They are not under the guardianship of the first plaintiff. After the death of Adichan Nadar fourth defendant inherited his properties as his only son. He was in possession of the properties as the absolute owner and not as Manager of a joint family. Plaintiffs did not get any right over the plaint schedule property by their birth. It was also contended that parties are not Hindus governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law. It was contended that gift given to a daughter at the time of her marriage is really in lieu of share of the daughter and as such it was quite valid under the Christian Succession Act. Third defendant also filed written statement supporting the contentions raised by defendants 1 and 2. It was stated by the third defendant that he obtained possession from defendants 1 and 2 under the sale deed taken by him and that he was in absolute possession of one acre and 25 cents out of the plaint schedule properties. In order to establish the case PW.1 was examined on the side of the plaintiffs and Exts.A1 to A18 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exts.B1 to B15 were produced and marked.

3. Trial court after examining the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that plaintiffs and the fourth defendant are not Hindus and that the plaint schedule property is the joint family property. It was also held that the gift deed dated 13.3.1975 is valid. Court also held that plaint schedule property cannot be taken as self acquisition of the defendants and that it is joint family property registered in the name of the fourth defendant for the benefit of the joint family. The court did not accept the argument of the counsel for the defendants that plaint schedule property is not joint family property and that it belongs to fourth defendant. After upholding that the gift deed was valid trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved