Minors are entitled to maintain suit for partition.

(This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 7.1.1992 in A.S.No.55 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 9.8.1990 in O.S.No.646 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.)

First defendant in O.S.No.646 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.No.55 of 1990 dated 7.1.1992, filed the present second appeal. During pendency of the second appeal, the first defendant died and hence his legal representatives were impleaded as appellants 2 to 4 vide orders of this Court dated 25.8.2005 in C.M.P.Nos.16946 to 16948 of 2004. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit are respondents herein.

2. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of the second appeal, as could be seen from the plaint and written statement, are as follows.

(a) The suit properties originally belonged to the joint family consisted of one Hariputhiri Gounder, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, and his sons Munusamy Gounder and Elumalai Gounder, the third defendant in this suit. In an oral partition, the western half of item No.1 of the suit property was allotted to the elder brother Munusamy Gounder and the eastern half was allotted to the third defendant Elumalai Gounder and they were enjoying their respective properties by paying kist, etc., separately. The suit second item is a well which was being enjoyed in common. The said Munusamy Gounder, by registered sale deed dated 27.7.1972, sold his share of western half of item No.1 in favour of one Dharmasivam, son of the first defendant. Subsequently, by the registered exchange deed dated 29.8.1972, first defendant on behalf of his minor son, and the third defendant on his behalf and on behalf of his minor son Kothandaraman, the first plaintiff herein, exchanged their respective shares in item No.1 of the suit property. From that date onwards, according to the plaintiffs, the entire extent of item No.1 was in the enjoyment of the joint family consisting of the third defendant Elumalai Gounder and his sons, the plaintiffs herein. Elumalai Gounder had also erected a cattle shed spending Rs.2,000/- in that property. The second defendant is the Uncle's son of Krishnaveni Ammal, the mother of the plaintiffs and he is close to the third defendant Elumalai Gounder, father of the plaintiffs. He, taking advantage of the weaknesses of the third defendant and with ulterior motive, got a sale deed registered in his favour on 28.11.1984 in respect of the suit properties. Subsequently, the second respondent secretly and in a hurried manner, created another sale deed dated 4.12.1984 to appear as if the suit properties were sold to the first respondent. As the documents were created behind the back of the plaintiffs and against the welfare of the joint family of the plaintiffs, the same will not bind the plaintiffs. It is the further alleged in the plaint that taking advantage of the alleged sale deed dated 4.12.1984, the first defendant on 12.3.1985 entered into the suit property and attempted to heap the hayricks and tie his cattles in the cattleshed, which was prevented by the plaintiffs. The first defendant, using his money and muscle power, prevented even the plaintiffs to tie their cattles in the cattleshed. As the third defendant acted against the interest of the plaintiffs, they filed the suit for partition to divide the suit property into three equal shares and to allot 2/3rd share to them and also claiming Rs.30/- per months towards loss of rent in respect of their 2/3rd share from the date of suit till payment.

(b) In the written statement filed by the first defendant, he admitted that there was an oral partition between the third defendant and his elder brother Munusamy Gounder with regard to suit item No.1; that the Munu