1. Admitted.

2. Appellants, wife and children of original defendant No. 1 on whose death a few days after the institution of the suit they assumed the character as his legal representatives initially sued for a declaration that a document of sale 'seen to have been executed by defendant No. 1' in favour of respondent No. 1 on 04/10/1986 concerning plaint A schedule property is void and for prohibitory injunction. They claimed that plaint A schedule property belonged to deceased defendant No. 1, husband of first appellant and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and while so, sale deed dated 04/10 / 1986 was created as if it were executed by deceased defendant No. 1 which is not valid or binding on the appellants. They alleged that deceased defendant No. 1 was a drunkard, became unconscious during the relevant time due to acute illness and was unable to manage himself. He was admitted in C.K.G Memorial Hospital and then in Lourde Hospital. Therefrom he was taken to the tarwad house. It is while so that the impugned document was created as if it were executed by deceased defendant No. 1. Appellants alleged that deceased defendant No. 1 was not able to write or subscribe his signature and