P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

S.A. 553 of 1986 is by the plaintiffs and S.A. 567 of 1986 is by defendant No. 2 in O.S.68 of 1979 on the file of the Munsiff s Court of Perumbavoor. The plaintiffs are the children of the Karthyayani Amma who died some time in the year 1959 or I960, after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiffs originally sued defendant No.1 for redemption of a mortgage dated 3.1.1958 executed by their mother in favour of defendant No. 1. On the plea of defendant No.1 that subsequent to the mortgage the equity of redemption also had been sold on behalf of the plaintiffs by their guardian to defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2 was also impleaded and an amendment sought challenging the alienation of the equity of redemption and seeking the setting aside of that document and for recovery of possession from defendant No. 2 also. Defendant No.1 resisted the suit essentially contending that the equity of redemption had been lost to the plaintiffs by the assigning of the same in favour of defendant No. 2 and hence the plaintiffs were not also pleaded that subsequent to the sale of equity of redemption in favour of defendant No. 2 defendant No.1 had surrendered the mortgagee's interest in favour of defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 2 was in possession. Defendant No. 2 pleaded that the assignment of the equity of redemption in her favour by the guardian of the plaintiffs was valid and binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were not entitled to challenge the said assignment. Defendant No. 2 also pleaded that the suit by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation.

2. The deed of mortgage was marked as Ext. Al and the sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs acting as their guardian in favour of defendant No. 2 was marked as Ext. B1 and its copy was marked as Ext. A2. The sale taken by the father of the plaintiffs from one Ramakrishnan Nair on the date of sale Ext. B1 was marked as Ext. B2. This was to support the plea that utilising the consideration obtained by the sale of the equity of redemption, father of the plaintiffs had acquired another property for the minors. The first plaintiff was examined as PW1, the second plaintiff was examined as PW2 and a stranger was examined as PW3. The trial court held that the sale of equity of redemption by the father of the plaintiffs acting as their guardian was void since no permission as envisaged by S.8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 was obtained prior to the sale, and hence the plaintiffs could ignore the said sale and seek redemption of the mortgage since the suit for redemption of the mortgage was within time. The trial court found that defendants were entitled to value of improvements and the quantum would be determined in the final decree proceedings. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for redemption. The defendants went up in appeal. The appellate court held that the pliaintiffs were bound to seek the setting aside of the sale of the equity of redemption Ext. B1 and the relief in that behalf was barred by limitation in view of the fact that plaintiff No. 1, who could give a valid discharge had attained majority more than three years prior to the filing of the suit. But that court took the view that the share in the property inherited by plaintiff No. 2 on the death of the other could not be affected by the sale of the equity of redemption effected by the father as guardian of the plaintiff and since the suit was instituted within three years of the attaining of majority by plaintiff No. 2 that plaintiff was entitled to redeem the mortgage and was entitled to have one out of six shares in the property delivered over to him on a division of the property. It is feeling aggrieved by this modification that the plaintiff has filed S.A. 553 of 1986. Defendant No. 2 has filed S.A. 567 of 1986 by raising a contention that the plaintiffs were bound to disgorge the benefit derived by them on utilising the considerat