M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

Appellant is the only son of deceased Velliyattu Narayanan. Appellant filed 0.5.169/81 before Munsiff Court, Payyannur on 7-9-1981 with his maternal uncle as his next friend. The suit was subsequently returned for presentation before proper court and was represented as O.S.318/82 before Sub Court, Thalasserry. Later it was transferred to Sub Court, Payyannur, and numbered as O.S.83/87. The suit was for partition of twelve items of properties scheduled in the plaint. His mother was the second defendant and grandmother (mother of Narayanan) was first defendant. It was contended by appellant that plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Narayanan and on the death of Narayanan, it devolved upon his wife, second defendant, mother first defendant and son, plaintiff and each of them are entitled to one share and though Ext. A-8 partition deed was executed by defendants 1 and 2, it was against the interest of plaintiff and second defendant did not act in the interest of appellant as his guardian and therefore he is entitled to ignore Ext. A-8 and seek partition. It was also contended that though items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are self acquired properties of deceased Narayanan under Ext.A-1 marupattam deed of 26-3-1959 and item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties belonged to Narayanan under Ext.A-2 marupattam deed of 7-2-1963 and item No. 4 property was purchased by deceased Narayanan as per Ext. A-3 assignment deed 20-2-1959, they were not included in Ext.A-8 partition deed and therefore he is entitled to get partition and separation of his 1/3 shares. It was also contended that appellant is entitled to ignore the alienations made by defendants. On the death of first defendant defendants 3 to 6 were impleaded as her legal heirs. Appellant also instituted O.S.170/81 before Munsiff Court, Payyannur which was later transferred to Sub Court, Thalasserry and renumbered as O.S.323/82 and again transferred to Sub Court, Payyannur and renumbered as 0.S.84/87. That suit was filed by the minor appellant with his maternal uncle as the next friend seeking partition of fifteen items of properties scheduled in the plaint. First defendant therein is the grandmother of the appellant who was also first defendant in 0.5.83/87. Sixth defendant is his mother, the second defendant in O.S.83/87. Defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters and defendants 4 and 5 the sons of first defendant, who were later impleaded as defendants 3 to 6 in O.S.83/87. According to appellant, plaint schedule properties jointly belonged to first defendant and her children including deceased Narayanan and on the death of Narayanan, his 1/6th share devolved jointly on the appellant and sixth defendant and appellant is entitled to get his share separated. It was contended that in answer to the lawyer notice demanding partition, a reply notice was sent intimating that there was no co-ownership properties to he divided and the self acquired properties of Narayanan were divided as per Ext. A-8 partition deed and the co-ownership properties of defendants were divided under Ext. A-12 partition deed. It was further contended in the plaint that in Ext. A-12 partition deed, all the sharers were not parties and is not binding on him and appellant is entitled to get his share separated.

2. First defendant filed a written statement in O.S.83/87 contending that items 1 to 4 are not self acquired properties of Narayanan and therefore they are not available for partition. It was contended that items 5 to 12 the self acquired properties of Narayanan were divided between the sharers under Ext. A-8 partition deed and appellant the minor was represented by his mother second defendant and 'B' schedule properties there under were allotted jointly to the appellant and second defendant and appellant is not entitled to claim partition. Additional defendants 3 to 6 filed a written Statement reiterating the same contentions and additionall