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 misrep