K.T. Sankaran, J.

These Second Appeals arise out of three appeals which were disposed of by a common judgment and which arose out of three suits which were disposed of by the trial court by a common judgment.

2. The property in question, having an extent of 15.75 cents, originally belonged to Thankappan Parameswaran (second plaintiff) and Kumaran (second defendant) are the children of Thankappan and Gowri (third defendant). Rajan (first plaintiff) is the son of Parameswaran. Soman (first defendant) is the son of Kumaran and Rajamma (fourth defendant). (For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in O.S. No. 1047 of 1986, from which Second Appeal No. 54 of 1993 arose).

3. As per Ext. A1 partition deed executed in the year 1979 after the death of Thankappan, the properties including the property in dispute in these cases were divided into five shares. 'B' schedule in Ext A1 was allotted to the second defendant Kumaran. Gowri had a life interest in the property as per the terms of Ext.A1. Kumaran and Gowri assigned the plaint schedule property in favour of the first defendant Soman as per Ext.B1 sale deed dated 23.01.1985, registered as document No.239 of 1985 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Ernakulam. Kumaran executed another sale deed, Ext.A3, on 16.04.1985 in favour of the first plaintiff, Rajan, which was registered as document No. 822 of 1985 of SRO., Mulanthuruthy. Soman claims title and possession to the property as per Ext.B1, while Rajan claims title and possession as per Ext.A3 sale deed. Disputes arose between the parties. O.S.No.952 of 1985 was filed by Soman against Rajan for injunction. O.S. No. 565 of 1985 was filed by Rajan and his father Parameswaran against Soman and his mother Rajamma for permanent prohibitory injunction. O.S. No. 1047 of 1986 was filed by Rajan and Parameswaran against Soman, Kumaran, Gowri and Rajamma for declaration of title and possession as per Ext.A3 title deed and for consequential relief’s. There was also a prayer for declaration that Ext.B1 was created under undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation and the same is null and void and it does not bind the plaintiffs.

4. The trial court decreed the suit for injunction, O.S.No.952 of 1985, filed by Soman and dismissed the other suits. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

5. The title of Kumaran is admitted. It is also admitted that life interest was created in favour of Gowri. If Ext.B1 dated 23.01.1985 is valid, Rajan cannot claim any title to the property as per Ext.A3 dated 16.04.1985. The case put forward by Rajan and his father is that they entered into an agreement for sale with Kumaran in respect of the property on 23.08.1984 for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 3,500/- was paid on the date of agreement as evidenced by Ext.A2 receipt executed by Kumaran. The averment in the plaint is that to defraud the plaintiffs, (hereinafter Rajan and his father are referred to as plaintiffs and Soman and others are referred to as defendants.) defendant Nos.1 to 4 had created Ext.B1. It is also alleged that Ext.B1 is a document created under fraud, undue influence, coercion and mis-representation. Ext. B1 is not a valid sale deed. The first defendant is not a bona-fide purchaser for adequate consideration without notice of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the second defendant. Ext.B1 was created with malafide intention to defeat the interests of the plaintiffs.

6. The defendants denied the allegations of fraud, coercion, undue influence etc. They contended that there was no agreement between the second defendant and the plaintiff to assign the property. Ext.A2 was not executed by the second defendant. Ext.A3 was not executed by the second defendant with his free will and volition. The second defendant was taken to the Sub Registrar's office under the pretext that he had to execute a document as a surety. The plaintiffs intoxicated the second defendant, who