1. Both the appeals are from the same decree. A.S. No. 515 of 1951 is by the second defendant while A.S. No. 559 of 1951 is by the first defendant. The suit is for setting aside two sale deeds and for incidental reliefs. The fifth defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the fourth defendant is the mother of the fifth defendant. Plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5 are members of an Ezhava Marumakkathayam sub-tarwad. Plaint schedule items 1 and 2 belonged to the sub-tarwad. Item No. 3 is a building in item No.1 and item No. 4 is a building in item No. 2. Plaint items 1 and 2 were purchased in the name of the fourth defendant under Ext. A dated 8.1.1065 with money advanced by the fourth defendant's mother. According to the plaintiff, the acquisition enured to the benefit of the sub-tarwad. Defendants 4 and 5 sold item No.1 to the first defendant under Ext. B dated 20.9.1104 and item No. 2 to the second defendant under Ext. C dated 30.9.1111. It is alleged that these sale deeds are not supported by consideration and necessity binding on the sub-tarwad and that defendants 4 and 5 were not competent to execute the same. The building in item No.1 was put up by the first defe