1.This Suit has been filed by a minor through his next friend, his mother, against his legal guardian his father and other members of the HUF to which he belongs for partition of the HUF properties by metes and bounds and by delivery of the Plaintiff's share to him.

2. The existence of the HUF, the coparceners of the HUF as well as the minor's position in the HUF as a coparcener are admitted. In fact the Court's attention is drawn to the other minor coparceners in the HUF, other than the coparceners shown in the Plaint. They are the two daughters of Defendant No.4. The HUF, therefore, consists of the Plaintiff, his grandfather, Defendant No.2, his father, Defendant No.3, his uncle, Defendant No.4 and his cousins who are not Defendants in the Suit, they, having been born in 1993 and 1996 and being yet unmarried, are female coparceners in the HUF.

3.Defendant No.2 acquired various properties and established the HUF. The properties are shown and assessed as HUF properties.

4.Upon seeing the admission of the HUF in the income tax returns of Defendant No.2 and the members who comprise it, a Suit for partition lies.

5.It is contended on behalf of the Defendants that the Suit for partition is not filed bonafide and it has been filed at the instance of the mother of the minor who has filed the Suit only to extract monies by availing of and depleting the share of the minor. It is contended that if the minor continues in the HUF, it would be to his benefit. It is also contended that the Defendants not only accept the minor as a coparcener but are prepared to maintain the minor out of the HUF properties.

6.There have been certain other proceedings between the parents of the minor in the Family Court. An application on behalf of the minor as well as his mother for maintenance, not out of the HUF properties but against the father/husband of the parties, has been made as an Interim Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

7.It is contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that his mother is acting, and as his mother is expected to act, only for the benefit of the minor. To show the bonafides of the Plaintiff, it is offered that the 1/6th share of the minor in the coparcenary property be set aside and invested for and on behalf of the minor until he attains majority.

8.It is contended on behalf of the Defendants that a minor is not entitled to sue for partition during his minority if his father does not assent to giving him separate possession of his share. Mr.Madon on behalf of the Defendants has drawn my attention to two Bombay High Court judgments in the case of (1) Araji N. Kulkarni vs. Ramchandra R. Kulkarni, ILR 16 Bombay 29 and (2) Jivabhai Vadilal vs. Vadilal Sakarchand & C., 1905 Vol.VII BLR 232 in this regard.

9.The judgment in the case of Bammangouda Shankargouda Patil & anr. Shankargouda Rangangouda Patil, AIR 1944 Bombay 67 has considered the application of a minor to partition the HUF to which he belongs. The only requirement for the Court to see is that the partition is for the benefit of the minor. It is observed at page 69 that that is a wholesome rule of law as the property which would be in the hands of the adult coparceners in the family should not be divided and handed over to a minor at the instance of unscrupulous persons when the minor's share, if partitioned, would be in danger of being applied to purposes adverse to the minor's interest. Consequently, it would be for the Defendants to show that the application on behalf of the minor made by the mother in this case is vitiated by unscrupulousness such as to endanger the minor's share for an adverse interest. Once that is seen, it is held, that the principle of Hindu law which governs separation of estate is the same for minors as well adults.

10.Mr.Dwarkadas on behalf of the Plaintiff has drawn my attention to two Supreme Court judgments in the case of (1) Bishundeo Narain & anr. vs. Seogeni Rai & ors., AIR (88) 1951 S.C. 280 and (2) Kakumanu Pedasubh