The main legal point established is that fraudulent misrepresentation can vitiate a sale deed, and the court will consider the circumstances, conduct of the parties, and discrepancies in the documents to determine the validity of the transaction.

V. Sivaraman Nair, J.

1. Defendants l and 2 in O.S.No. 90 of 1979 of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta are the appellants. In that suit the respondent sought a decree setting aside Ext. A1 sale deed dated 8-12-1978, issue of permanent injunction against the defendants-the appellants herein, and recovery of possession from them of the suit property with mesne profits. The lower Court decreed the suit enabling the plaintiff respondent to recover possession from the appellants together with mesne profit at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per annum till recovery. Hence this appeal.

2. The facts which are necessary to appreciate the rival contentions are the following. The husband of the respondent, deceased Jayaram Pillai, got 11.95 Acres of land in Sy. No. 906/1-7 of Kunnathur Village as per partition deed No. 60848 of 1123. He assigned 2.25 acres out of that property under Ext. B2 document to the first defendant. 1.41 Acres of to the West of that land is the Suit property. Sri. Jayaram Pillai died on 31-12-1976. His widow-the respondent and her minor child were in enjoyment of the suit property since then. The first appellant's husband Gopalakrishna Pillai represented to the respondent that the Thandaper in respect of 2.25 acres covered by Ext. B2 sale deed still remains in the name of the late husband of the respondent and it was necessary to have the thandaper transferred to the name of the first appellant by executing a document, for which purpose she was required to go to the Sub Registry Office, Pathanamthitta on 8-12-1978. Believing that representation to be true, the respondent/ plaintiff went with the first appellant and her husband and signed Ext. A1 document which had already been prepared. She did not realise at that time that she was executing a sale deed in respect of the suit property. She was led to believe that the document which she was signing related to transfer of thandaper in respect of the property covered by Ext. B2. There was no consideration for the sale. The respondent, after the death of her husband, was depending on the assistance of a few relatives, The suit property was looked after on her behalf by her sister Smt. Kamalakshy Amma. When she sent to the suit property on 10-12-1978 to sell rubber sheets, the first appellant told her that Ext. A1 was a sale deed and the respondent has no right in the suit property. The respondent realised this position only at that time. She went to the office of the Sub Registrar at Pathanamthitta along with her sister immediately and obtained a copy of Ext. A1 and found that it was a sale deed which she had executed on the basis of representation of the first appellant and her husband that it was a document intended only to transfer of thandaper in respect of the land covered by Ext. B2 into the name of the first appellant. The suit was instituted on 5-1-1979. The respondent pleaded that Ext. A1 document in respect of the suit property was obtained on the basis of a fraudulent representation by exploiting her ignorance. It was, therefore that she sought a decree setting aside Ext. A1 sale deed, and a permanent injunction and recovery of possession with mesne profits. On 14-12-1978 the first defendant sold the suit property along with 2.25 acres covered by Ext. B1 document to the 2nd defendant. The respondent / plaintiff filed I.A. 452/81 to implead the 2nd appellant as additional 2nd defendant. That application was allowed by order dated 9-1-1981.

3. The first defendant contended that Sri. Jayaram Pillai had actually transferred 3.66 acres of land inclusive of the suit property to the first defendant under Ext. B2 sale deed and that she was in possession and enjoyment of the entire holding. The description of the property in Ext. B2 document was 2.25 acres or more, and the western boundary was stated to be the land which Sri Jayaram Pillai had sold to one Sri Shamsuddin and Sri Bhaskaran Nair. The suit property consisting of 1.41 acres in extent formed part of the property