The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale and hypothecation deeds were created by fraud and misrepresentation, and no possession of the suit property passed under the sale deed.

This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered by the District Judge, Kollam in A.S. No. 123 of 1989 dated 22-11-1991. The appellants are the legal representatives of the second defendant who were brought on record as defendants 6 to 8 on the demise of the second defendant. The original plaintiff Mytheen Kunju Abdul Rehman Kunju died pending the first appeal. Therefore his legal representatives have been brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5 who are the respondents along with other defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5.

2. The deceased plaintiff filed O.S. No. 622/83 before the Munsiff Court, Quilon for declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property, to set aside Ext. B2 sale deed and Ext. B3 hypothecation deed and for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from committing trespass into the suit property and from interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property is 30 cents. The case of the plaintiff for consideration is as follows :

The deceased plaintiff got the suit property under Ext. A1 partition of the year 1967. The property is lying contiguous to the properties of the other sharers under Ext. A1. The first defendant is the eldest son of the deceased first plaintiff. He studied up to Pre-Degree and he was unemployed. While searching for employment he happened to approach the second defendant. The second defendant gave assurance to the first defendant that he would get a job for the first defendant in Gulf countries, provided, if the first defendant would pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Out of Rs. 15,000/- the second defendant, who was in Gulf country then, required Rs. 3000/- for the preliminary expenses. The plaintiff has lost his vision in both the eyes on account of accute diabetes. The first defendant approached his father the plaintiff and informed him that by executing a hypothecation deed of the suit property in favour of the second defendant, they would raise a sum of Rs. 3000/- for the preliminary expenses of the first defendant to go to Gulf country. Though the first plaintiff had no money at that time, he was very anxious in getting an employment for his son -- the first defendant - and therefore he agreed to execute the hypothecation deed as required by defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, on 22-1-1983 all of them went to the Sub-Registrar's office, Kundara, where the 5th defendant was an employee of the Sub-Registrar's office. Defendants 1, 2 and 5 had already prepared the document Ext. B2 and they obtained the signature of the first plaintiff in the document in the presence of the Sub-Registrar on the representation that it was only a hypothecation deed for a sum of Rs. 3000/-. The first plaintiff on the representation of the defendants 1 and 2 believed that it was a hypothecation deed for a sum of Rs. 3000/- and signed the documents in the places shown by them, though he was totally blind. In the month of September, 1983, the first plaintiff came to know that the defendants 4 and 5 were attempting to trespass into the suit property. Therefore the first plaintiff obtained the registration copy of the Ext. B2, namely, Ext. A4. Only after seeing Ext.A4, the first plaintiff came to know that by exercising fraud and misrepresentation, the defendants 1 and 2 have got Ext.B2 deed registered as sale deed. Therefore, he immediately approached the Civil Court and filed the suit for reliefs stated supra.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement supporting the case of the first plaintiff. In other words, his allegations in the written statements would be that he believed the second defendant that it was only a hypothecation deed executed for Rs. 3000/- and, though he has studied up to Pre-Degree, he did not go through the documents. The defendants 4 and 5 in their written statement would contend that the first plaintiff transferred his right to the second defendant under Ext.B2 sale deed on receipt of Rs. 3000/- and put the second defendant in possession of