Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode-II in O.S.No.344/1993, followed by those of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode in A.S.No.43/2001, the plaintiffs have come up in second appeal.

2. The suit is one for declaration that Ext.B1, by which the defendant had cancelled Ext.A1, is void, and for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property on the strength of Ext.B1, and from creating any alienations or encumbrances based on Ext.B1. The trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.60/2001 before the District Court, Kozhikode. Thereafter, the said appeal was made over to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode wherein it was renumbered as 43/2001. The lower appellate court has also concurred with the findings entered by the trial court and dismissed the appeal, and hence this second appeal.

3. This Court admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) When execution of Ext.A1 sale deed was admitted and the contention of the respondent was that it was vitiated by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation, whether respondent, executant of Ext.A1, is entitled to cancel Ext.A1 sale deed under Ext.B1 and if so, whether Ext.B1 is valid?

(2) Whether courts below on the evidence were justified in holding that Ext.A1 sale deed was vitiated and Ext.B1 cancellation deed is valid?

(3) Whether finding of courts below that suit is barred by limitation is sustainable, when appellants instituted the suit immediately after getting knowledge of existence of Ext.B1?"

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri. P.V. Kunhi Krishnan and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri.Mohammed Aslam.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Ext.B1 cancellation deed is void and inoperative and the same could not have cancelled a valid sale deed in the form of Ext.A1. It has also been argued that both the courts below have gone wrong in finding that Ext.A1 is not valid and by further finding that Ext.B1 cancellation is a valid document.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the original defendant was an illiterate woman and therefore, she should be treated as in the case of a pardahnashin lady. When the contents of Ext.A1 were not made known to the defendant, the pleadings resorted to by the defendant should be treated as denial of execution. It has also been argued that the admission of mere signature in the document will not invite an admission of execution. According to the respondent, the judgments passed by both the courts below do not call for any interference at all.

7. The case of the plaintiff is that through Ext.A1 sale deed dated 17.05.1985, the defendant sold 11 cents of property to the plaintiff for valuable consideration. The plaintiff thereafter mutated the property in his favour and paid the tax for the property for the period from 1991 to 1998 through Exts.A2 to A7 tax receipts. In the year 1992, the plaintiff wanted to avail a loan by mortgaging the said property, for which he procured Ext.A8 encumbrance certificate dated 03.12.1992. He was taken aback to see from the encumbrance certificate that Ext.B1 cancellation deed dated 07.06.1985 was incorporated in it. According to the plaintiff, he came to know about Ext.B1 through Ext.A8 dated 03.12.1992 only, and hence the suit.

8. The original defendant filed a written statement contending that Ext.A1 has no legal validity since the same was caused to be executed by the plaintiff without paying any consideration and by exerting fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. According to her, the possession of the property was not delivered and still she continues to be in possession of the property. At the first portion of the written statement she was pretending as if she was not aware of the execution of Ext.A1. According to her, when she realised rega