1. These appeals have arisen from the same decree, A. S. No. 967 being by defendants Nos. 13 to 15,17 to 19,30, 31,34,35, 37, 40 and the assignees of defendants 7,17 to 19, 32 and 36, and A. S. No. 985 by defendants 8 to 11.

2. The plaint A schedule properties were obtained by the plaintiffs and their mother, the 1st defendant, under a gift by their father as per Ext. P-1 dated 1110 1937 (1113 M. E.). Under S.22 of the Travancore Nayar Act, II of 1100, the properties belonged to the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs in equal shares. While the plaintiffs were minors, on 8 31118 the 1st defendant sold the plaint A Schedule properties to the 2nd defendant as per Ext. P-2. With part of its consideration, the plaint B schedule properties were purchased the same day in the name of the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs disown the acquisition of plaint B schedule properties, contend that the sale was for no necessity, and seek to set aside the alienation and recover the plaint A schedule properties, with mesne profits and damages for removal of timber-trees.

The defence was that the sale by the mother bound the plaintiffs, that with Rs. 5400 received on the date of