1. The plaintiff, who lost in both the courts below is the appellant.

2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for delivery of possession of the suit property and also for accounts and future profits. The plaintiff is the owner of the schedule mentioned property as she got the same under Deed of Settlement on 26.10.1959 executed by her father when she was then a minor. She was placed in possession and her mother acting as guardian and patta was also changed in her name. They were paying kist due for the property. The father of the plaintiff is alive. The plaintiff understands that her mother acting as guardian had unauthorisedly entered into an agreement of sale of the property on 3.4.1973 with the 1st defendant. The said act of the mother is void ab initio . The father of the plaintiff is her natural guardian during her minority. When her father is alive, her mother will be at best a de facto guardian and she is not entitled to deal with the property of the minor or agree to convey the property. The said agreement does not convey any title to the 1st defendant and the plaintiff continues to be the owner of the suit property. She belongs to an affluent family of the Zamindar of Pappanad and there was no need or necessity to sell any of her properties and there was no benefit to her. Even if any amounts are said to have been paid by the 1st defendant, the said payments were not received by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is not entitled to any relief. Relying on the void agreement, the 1st respondent attempted to trespass into the property in or about 1973 and forcibly entered into the property in 1975. The plaintiff’s father, her natural guardian filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from entering into the properties in O.S.No.188 of 1975 and the defendant also contested the suit on the basis that he is in possession of the same. The plaintiff understands that the 1st defendant relying upon some collusive correspondence and other records created with the help of Village officers in support of his contention. The suit O.S.No.188 of 1975 was withdrawn by her father. The 2nd defendant was appointed as Receiver by the Court and he was collecting the rents and profits. Now, the 1st defendant had taken the property on lease from the Receiver. The plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the property besides profit for three years prior to the suit. Since the 1st defendant is setting up some right in the third defendant, he was impleaded as a party. Hence the suit.The 1st defendant denied the averments in the p laint. The father of the plaintiff admittedly settled the suit property in favour of the minor. To make the gift complete it was the mother who has been designated and described in the document as a guardian. The plaintiff cannot go back to say that the minor's mother did never act as guardian even to accept gift under the settlement deed. There is no averment in the plaint that the minor's mother acted without the knowledge of the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff living with her parents has been well looked after and provided for. There is no question of the plaintiff having been prejudiced by anybody acting against her interest. The plaintiff’s father is a Zamindar with extensive properties and has been evading clutches of law by putting his properties under Benami transaction with ulterior motive to avoid Land Ceiling Act, Wealth Tax Act, etc. There was no need for settlement of the father's property to the only daughter, the plaintiff. It was the father, who has been acting through and right thro ugh and with his knowledge, consent and concurrent the minor's mother was described as a guardian and she entered into an agreement to sell the property to the 3rd defendant. He agreed to purchase the property for a price of Rs. 1,05,866 and an advance of Rs.23,000 was received. Later, a sum of Rs.45,000 was paid on 05.08.1973 and another sum of Rs.10,000 w