The main legal point established in the judgment is that an assignment deed executed by a natural guardian, in contravention of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, is void ab initio and can be avoided by the minor through mere conduct, without the need for formal legal proceedings to set it aside.

1. The legal representatives of P.T. Chathu Chettiar, two in number, who are additional appellants 2 and 3, are the appellants in the second appeal. Deceased Chathu Chettiar was the second defendant in O.S.95 of 1969 in the Munsiff's Court, Perambra. The respondents to the second appeal are plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 and the 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st defendant in the suit is one Peruvana Changaran, father of plaintiffs 1 and 2. On 8-3-1947 Changaran aforesaid, the 1st defendant and one Kelappan obtained the plaint property in 'kanam kuzhikkanom' right. Kelappan's right was later got assignment of by Ammalu, mother of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 on their behalf on 24/25-3-1955, evidenced by Ext. Bl. The father of plaintiffs 1 and 2, Ist defendant in the suit, Changaran, and the plaintiff's mother Ammalu for and on behalf of and as the guardian of plaintiffs 1 and 2, executed an assignment deed in favour of deceased P. T. Chathu Chettiar, the 2nd defendant on 12-11-1958 in respect of a portion of the plaint property. The original document is Ext. B2 and the certified copy thereof is Ext. Al in the case. Alleging that Ammalu, their mother, is not competent to represent the plaintiffs and execute an assignment deed in respect of their half share in the plaint property, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of their, half share in the plaint item after ignoring Ext. B2 (Ext. Al) in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of a portion of the plaint property. The plaintiffs alleged that their mother, Ammalu, was incompetent to represent them who were minors on the date of Ext. B2, that the transfer was not for the benefit of the plaintiffs, nor was it supported by consideration and the same is void ab initio and will not bind the half share of the plaintiffs in the suit property. The 2nd defendant, according to the plaintiffs, did not get any right under the document, Ext. B2. On the date of the suit, the 1st plaintiff had attained majority and he filed the suit on his behalf and as guardian of the 2nd plaintiff (minor) for partition and separate possession of their half share.

2. The 2nd defendant alienee raised various contentions. According to him Ammalu is a necessary party to the suit, that Ext. B2 assignment deed is supported by consideration and necessity, that the consideration received as per Ext. B2 was utilised for the benefit of the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs have no right over the property which is in his possession in view of the assignment, that the suit is filed at the instance of the 1st defendant, father, and his wife (mother of the plaintiffs) and that, it is not maintainable and in case it is found that partition has to be allowed the amount paid by him should be made a charge on the halt share belonging to the 1st defendant and he should also be made liable for the consideration paid as per Ext. B2 deed.

3. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit in part. The learned Munsiff adverted to the fact that Ammalu, the mother of the plaintiffs, was not the legal guardian at the time of Ext. B2 and in view of S.11 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act such a document is void ab initio and will not bind the minors. He also found that in Ext. B2 deed the plaintiffs' father had not joined as the guardian of the minor children (plaintiffs). Notwithstanding the above, according to the Munsiff,the junction of the 1st defendant (father) in Ext. B2 should be "considered" as one on his own behalf and as the guardian of the plaintiffs (minors) though it was not mentioned in the deed that the father had joined as the guardian of the minors. In this view of the matter, the learned Munsiff held that in so far as there is no prayer to set aside Ext. B2, it cannot be simply ignored by the plaintiffs' and so the plaintiffs are bound by Ext. B2 and not entitled to a share on partition regarding the properties covered by Ext. B2. Excluding the properties covered by Ext. B2 a preliminary de