plaintiff is required to file suit for cancellation of earlier partition.

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

Plaintiff in O.S. No. 20 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai is the appellant in the above appeal. He filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/9th share. By judgment and decree dated 4-5-1985, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the present appeal before this Court.

2. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the amended plaint is brifely stated hereunder :-

Defendants 1, 5 and 8 are brothers and sons of one A.R. Manickam Chettiar. Defendants 6 and 7 are the sons of 5th defendant. The plaintiff and the 9th defendant are the sons of 8th defendant. All the above said persons constitute a Hindu Joint family. A.R. Manickam Chettiar was a leading businessman of Madukkur. Even during his life time, his 3 sons were doing business on behalf of their family. They acquired vast extent of lands and houses. The members of the family were doing business on behalf of the joint family, either in their individual names or in the names of two or three persons among them. The various business enterprises did not arise out of a contract but has been created by operation of Hindu Law between the members of an undivided Hindu family. The joint family was doing the following business :-

1) Sri Dhaniya-Lakshmi Vilas Rice Mill, Madukkur.

2) Sri Murugan rice Mill, Madukkur.

3) Fertiliser sales in the name of A.R. Manickam Chettiar Sons, Natrajan and then V. Chandrasekaran.

4) Groundnut kernal sales under the name and style v. Chandrasekaran.

5) Dalmia Cement Agency in the name of V. Chandrasekaran.

6) Neiveli Urea Agency, Mannargudi.

7) Highways contract in the name of A.M. Nagamaiyan Chettiar.

8) Public Carrier MDF 2290 in the name of A.M. Vasudevan.

9) National Credit Corporation, Madukkur (A.M. Nagamaiyan and v. Chandrasekaran were parrtners in the above concern on behalf of the family).

3. It is further stated that in 1976, misunderstandings arose between the first defendant and 5th defendant on the one hand and the 8th defendant on the other hand. The first and fifth defendants were powerful persons and they conspired to take over the entire assets leaving the 8th defendant and the members of his branch with very little out of the assets in the joint family. The 8th defendant was a man of timid nature. He was also physically weak. In pursuance of a conspiracy, they extracted a Release Deed from him on 1-9-1977. Under the Release Deed, the defendants 1 and 5 retained Sri Dhaniyalakshmi Vilas Rice Mill which is the biggest Rice Mill in Madukkur. Under the same document, they allotted to the 8th defendant a very small cooly rice Mill by name Sri Murugan Rice Mill, the value of which is less than 1/8 of Dhaniya-Lakshmi Vilas Rice Mill. In the said Release Deed, the plaintiff is not a party.

4. Defendants 1 and 5 also brought into existence another partition Deed dated 28-8-1977. Under the said deed, the defendants 1 to 9 and the plaintiff were all allotted shares. This partition deed was also the result of conspiracy and fraud played by the defendants 1 and 5. The plaintiff has been allotted infinite small share in this deed under schedule No. 10 and his interest has greatly suffered. The Release Deed as well as the Partition Deed are not valid or binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the execution of the above mentioned document. He was born on 28-4-1962. In the partition deed dated 28-8-1977, the plaintiff as a minor was represented by his mother Smt. K. Vathsala. She is neither a de facto guardian nor a natural guardian. The erstwhile minor can file a suit for partition within 3 years after attaining majority without seeking to set aside the said partition deed. All the members of all the branches are allotted shares per-capita which is opposed to the principles of Hindu Law. A huge sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- which was available on the date of the partition, was left out of the scope