Intriguing legal questions in this appeal revolve around the interpretation of the terms in Ext.B1, a sale deed.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, short facts are thus :

Appellants are the defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for setting aside documents, consequential injunction and also for partition of certain immovable properties. Deceased Paru is the mother of plaintiff, 2nd defendant and Lakshmikutty. A couple of years before the suit, Lakshmikutty died, leaving behind two children, who are defendants 3 and 4. 1st defendant is the son of 2nd defendant. Parties are members of Hindu Ezhava Community.

3. Plaintiff contended that the plaint A and B schedule properties belonged to deceased Paru. She obtained the property as per a registered document of the year 1121 Malayalam Era (M.E.), corresponding to 1946 AD. After Paru's death, the property devolved on her children. On the death of Lakshmikutty, the daughter of Paru, her rights devolved on defendants 3 and 4. The properties, therefore, are in the joint ownership of the parties to the suit. In the property, a residential building, owned by deceased Paru, is situated, wherein the defendants 1 and 2 are residing. Parties are in joint possession of the properties.

4. Plaintiff has three children. She was residing with her youngest son. Plaintiff was old and was mentally and physically infirm. She was unable to look after her affairs. Defendants 1 and 2 used to visit the plaintiff and they feigned love and affection towards her. Without knowing their real intent, the plaintiff reposed trust and confidence on them. On 15.10.1993 morning, the plaintiff's son had gone for job. His wife was also not present in the house. At that time, the defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff and informed her that they had made arrangements for preparing a document in respect of the common properties. They requested the plaintiff to sign the document as a witness from the Sub Registrar's Office, Chengamanad. Believing their words and reposing confidence in them, the plaintiff went along with defendants 1 and 2 to the Sub Registrar's Office and signed certain documents. She was not made aware as to the nature of the documents. When her son and daughter-in-law came back, the plaintiff informed all the matters to them and on an enquiry conducted thereafter, it was revealed that the plaintiff was caused to execute Ext.A1 sale deed. According to the plaint averments, defendants 1 and 2 fraudulently and by misrepresenting facts and also by exerting undue influence on the plaintiff, got Ext.A1 executed. Although she filed a complaint before the police concerned, they directed her to take recourse to a civil remedy. Ext.A1 is a fraudulent document and it does not bind the plaintiff. Therefore, she sought cancellation of Ext.A1 and document No.4645/93 of the same SRO (produced as part of Ext.X1). Along with that prayer, she claimed partition of plaint A and B schedule properties by metes and bounds. A prohibitory injunction against alienation and inducting strangers was also sought for.

5. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement refuting the allegations in the plaint. They contended that deceased Paru had three husbands. Her first husband was Panickassery Achuthan. Lakshmikutty was the daughter born to Paru in that relationship. Paru's second husband was Thandonnikara Achuthan. Plaintiff is his daughter. Thereafter Paru married for the third time Chettikattil Unniri Makotha. 2nd defendant is the son born to Paru through this marriage. They specifically contended that Paru had one child each in all the three marriages.

6. Plaint schedule properties did not belong to Paru. According to the defendants' case, Ext.B1 (Ext.X1) conferred no title on Paru and she had only a life estate over the property. Recitals in Ext.B1 would clearly show that the property absolutely vested in the 2nd defendant. The property was purchased by spending Unniri Makotha's money. As the 2nd defendant is the only child born to