Defendants in O.S. 300/1995 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kodungallur are the appellants. Plaintiffs are the respondents. Plaint A schedule property is 2.15 acres in survey No.469/3 of Payya village of Kodungallur Taluk. Item No.1 and 2 of the plaint B schedule properties are portions of the plaint A schedule property. Item No.1 is having an extent of 55 1/4 cents and item No.2 is 6.375 cents. The plaint A schedule property, admittedly originally belonged to Sreenivasa Shenoi under registered partition deed 2974 of 1964. Under Ext.A1 registered sale deed Sreenivasa Shenoi assigned the property in favour of Antony as guardian and father of respondents, who were then minors aged respectively six years and 3 years, for the minor children and any other children that may be born to Antony thereafter. Item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property was later assigned by Antony as guardian of the respondents, under Ext.B2 sale deed dated 20.4.1983 in favour of the first appellant. Using the said consideration, the property covered under Ext.B1 was purchased by father Antony in the name of the respondents on the same day. Subsequently first appellant assigned the property covered under Ext.B2, in favour of the second appellant under Ext.B4 sale deed dated 24.9.1987. Item No. 2 of the plaint B schedule property was also sold by Antony as the guardian of respondents under Ext.B3 sale deed dated 29.3.1984 in favour of the predecessor of appellants 3 to 10. Respondents on attaining majority instituted the suit seeking a decree for declaration that Exts.B2 to B5 are not valid and binding on them or the properties and they are voidable transactions. A consequential relief to set aside the documents and recovery of possession of plaint B schedule properties from the appellants on the strength of title was also sought. Respondents in the plaint contended that their father Antony was a drunkard and there was no necessity to alienate the property and respondents were not benefited by the sale and no sanction of the District Court was obtained for the alienations and therefore the documents are voidable and not binding on them.

2. Appellants resisted the suit contending that father of respondents were competent to alienate the property and the plaint B schedule properties were alienated for valuable consideration and the sale deeds are not voidable and they are valid and binding on the respondents and the properties and therefore respondents are not entitled to the decree sought for. Appellants also contended that in any case they are entitled to the value of improvements, in case recovery of possession is granted.

3. Learned Munsiff framed the necessary issues. On the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, Dws.1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B8 learned Munsiff found that under Ext.A1 the property belongs to the respondents and when they were minors, their father had no right to alienate the property without obtaining sanction from the District court as provided under section 28 of Guardians and Wards Act 1890 and as no sanction was obtained, Ext.B2 and B3 sale deeds are void. Learned Munsiff found that appellants who purchased the property, with the knowledge that it belongs to the respondents minors and their father had no right to alienate the property, are not entitled to claim any value of improvements. A decree was granted declaring that Ext.B2 to B5 alienations are not valid and binding on the respondents and cancelling them and directing the respondents to reconvey the plaint B schedule properties and also directing the appellants to surrender possession of plaint B schedule properties. Appellants challenged the judgment before District Court, Thrissur in A.S.163/2003. Learned District Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the judgment of the trial court holding that a natural guardian is not entitled to transfer the property of the minors without the sanction of the District Court and Exts.B2 to B5 alienations were without obtaini