The additional third defendant in O.S.No.522 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur is the appellant.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit referred to above for setting aside Ext.A2 sale deed in respect of 25 cents of the property out of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the said property with mesne profits from the defendant. The plaintiffs are the younger sisters of the defendant. The plaint schedule property was bequeathed to them and to their stepmother Parukutty by their father late Iyyer as per Ext.A2 will with a stipulation that if any one of them dies, the remaining will take the property absolutely. The case of the plaintiffs is that the step-mother of the plaintiffs Parukutty died during 1980 and that on the death of Parukutty, the defendant approached the plaintiffs and represented that the relatives of their stepmother would attempt to get the properties of their father and to prevent the same, a document needs to be executed by them. According to the plaintiffs, on the basis of the said representation, the plaintiffs have put their signatures on 23.1.981 in Ext.A1 document prepared by the defendant under the impression that the same is executed to protect the properties of their father from the relatives of their step-mother and co-operated with the defendants to register the same. It is the case of the plaintiffs that it is only during 1989, they came to know about the bequeath made by their father in their favour from another brother Velukutty. According to them, it is only in the enquiry conducted thereafter, they came to know that Ext.A1 is a sale deed in respect of 25 cents of property obtained by them by virtue of the will executed by their father in favour of the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, had they knew that the property in respect of which Ext.A1 document was executed is a property owned by them, they would not have executed a document in the nature of Ext.A1. It is also his case that, they have not received any consideration for executing Ext.A1 sale deed. According to the plaintiffs, the property covered by Ext.A1 sale deed was worth more than Rs.25,000/- at the time of execution of Ext.A1 document and what is recorded therein is that the defendant has paid a sum of Rs 3000/- to the plaintiffs by way of sale consideration.

3. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement. In the written statement, he contended, among others, that Ext.A1 sale deed has been executed by the plaintiffs knowing fully well about the nature of the document and that they have received adequate consideration for the transaction as well. According to the defendant, long before the death of the father of the plaintiffs, they were given away in marriage and they executed Ext.A1 sale deed in favour of the defendant as they were residing with their husbands. It was also contended by the defendant that at the time of execution of Ext.A1 document, the husbands of the plaintiffs were very much available in station and the sale consideration of the document was made use of by the first plaintiff for the construction of her house and the second plaintiff for sending her husband to Libya. The defendant had further contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The averments in the plaint that the plaintiffs were not aware of the nature of Ext.A1 and the contents of the same, were categorically denied in the written statement filed by the defendant.

4. The defendant died during the pendency of the suit and on his death, his wife and children were impleaded as additional defendants 2 to 6 in the suit.

5. When the suit came up for trial, plaintiffs gave evidence as PWs.1 and 2 and the wife of the defendant gave evidence as DW1.

6. The court below found that the suit is not barred by limitation. The court also found that Ext.A1 sale deed is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. Consequently, the suit was decreed setting aside Ext.A1 sale deed and permitting the plaintiff