1. Plaintiffs are the appellants.

2. The suit property, 9 acres 24 cents in extent, belonged to Issac Essiah. The 4th defendant is his widow, and the defendants 5 & 6 & plaintiffs 1 to 3 are his children. On 12 71118 defendants 4 and 6, the former acting personally and as guardian of the plaintiffs and the 6th defendant, sold the property for Rs. 200/-to the 1st defendant as per Ext. V. The 2nd defendant is the assignee of the 1st defendant; and the 3rd defendant is impleaded as one holding some interest under defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiffs claim 3/5 share in the property, divided in metes and bounds, ignoring Ext. V as not binding on them. The 2nd defendant contended that Ext. V bound the plaintiffs, particularly since their right to question it had become barred under Art.44, Limitation Act. Though Ext. V recited the entire price as paid in cash at its execution, the courts below have concurred in finding that it was not supported by consideration. On that finding, the Munsiff held the sale void and therefore decreed the suit as been in time allowed by Art.144, Limitation Act; but the Subordinate Judge held the sale voidable and therefore dismissed the suit as been bey