1. The appellants who are plaintiffs in the suit sued for cancellation of a sale deed Ext. A or I executed by their mother, the 5 defendant, when they were minors and for recovery of possession of the property with mesne profits. The property in dispute, a plot of land 34 cents in extent, belonged to the 5th defendant who gifted the same to the plaintiffs under Ext. V dated 15-8-1114. On 28-5-1115, the 5th defendant, purporting to act as guardian of the plaintiffs sold the property to one Gopalan deceased son of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the widow of Gopalan and the 3rd defendant is his minor son. The plaintiffs' case is that the 5th defendant was not competent to execute the sale deed and that it was not supported by consideration or necessity binding on them. The 2nd defendant contended inter alia that the gift was invalid and inoperative as it was not followed by delivery of possession and that the plaintiffs were therefore not entitled to any relief. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court upheld this contention and dismissed the suit.

2. The only question for decision is whether the plaintiffs became entitled to the property or in other wo