For the nature of the document caption cannot be determinative factor.

Defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants. The suit is for recovery of possession of the plaintiffs’ 8/10th shares in the suit properties. The plaintiffs’ case is as follows:-

2. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons and daughter of defendants 1 and 2. The first plaintiff was bom on 27th December, 1946, the second plaintiff on 2nd January, 1954 and the third plaintiff on 12th March, 1961. Originally the suit properties belonged to the joint family of the first plaintiff and the first defendant. The case of the plaintiffs is that the annual income from the family properties including the suit properties was between Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 20,000 that there was no need for the father viz., the first defendant to alienate any of the family properties, that the first defendant took to immoral ways and squandered away the properties and that in order to protect the interest of the first plaintiff, who was then a minor and other children to be born, the first plaintiff’s maternal uncle on behalf of the minor first plaintiff demanded partition of the family properties in 1956, that the first defendant acceded to the demand, that he partitioned the family properties under a document purporting to be a gift deed in favour of the first plaintiff on 5th December, 1956 (Exhibit A-l) that the first plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of that half share in the properties ever since, that after the said partition the first defendant executed a settlement deed a few days thereafter viz., 22nd December, 1956 (Exhibit A-2) in respect of the other half share of the family properties that as per the said settlement deed the properties are to devolve on the first plaintiff and the children of defendants 1 and 2" to be born thereafter retaining in favour of defendants 1 and 2 a life interest in the said properties with no rights of alienation, that the said properties were managed by the second defendant and the first defendant compelled the second defendant to alienate some of the properties not for any legal necessity, that the alienation in favour of the third defendant on 1st July, 1961 (Exhibit B-5) executed by defendants 1 and 2 is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and that it is void. The present suit is filed for recovery of possession, the first plaintiff claiming 5/10th share plus 110th and plaintiff’s 2 and 3 each claiming l/10th share in the suit properties. The further contention of the plaintiff’s is that the alleged debts mentioned in the mortgage deeds are for immoral purposes, that the second defendant is not the legal guardian as per the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, that the above sale by the second defendant without obtaining Court’s sanction is void and that the plaintiffs are entitled to ignore the said sale deed and claim a share in the suit property.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The third defendant filed a written statement contending that the yearly income from the suit properties belonging to the family is exaggerated that the allegation that the first defendant was leading an immoral life was false, that the first defendant had executed on othi over the suit property on 4th January, 1950 for Rs. 2,500 to one Ramaswami Konar, that the said othi was assigned in his favour on 20th March, 1953, that the first defendant in addition had executed a melothi over the suit property for Rs. 1,500 and for discharging the above two prior encumbrances the suit property was sold to him on 1st July, 1964 and that the said debts were discharged and the balance of Rs. 1,000 was given to defendants 1 and 2 to meet certain binding legal obligations. The further contention put forward by the third defendant was that the sale in his favour being for discharge of pre-partition debts is binding on the plaintiff’s that he has improved the lands after his purchase and that on the date of the suit he had no interest in the suit properties, he having gifted the same in favour of his grandson, the fourth defendant and the