Father alone competent to deal with the property.

JUDGEMENT :- The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit in forma pauperis for partition and separate possession of their half share in A schedule properties and for recovery of past and future profits. In the plaint, they claim that the properties mentioned in A sch. originally belonged to Subbammal, maternal grandmother of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 7 and 9 and she executed a registered Will on 13-5-1948 bequeathing the properties to her grandsons and appointing their mother as guardian and therefore each one of them secured one fourth there in the suit properties. The first plaintiff attained majority in May 1965 and the second plaintiff is still a minor. It is on attaining majority, the first plaintiff realised that the suit properties are in the possession of defendants 1 to 6 and 8, and therefore, the suit has been laid for the reliefs prayed for therein.

2. Fifth defendant filed a written statement adopted by defendants 6 and 8, claiming that they have purchased items 6 and 7 in A schedule for Rs. 5000 from defendants 7 and 9, and plaintiffs 1 and 2 represented by their mother and guardian Bagiammal under sale deed dated 27-7-1980, and all the debts mentioned in the sale deed have been discharged. A sum of Rs. 1400 was reserved for being paid to plaintiffs 1 and 2 on their attaining majority. The first plaintiff received his share of Rs. 700 on 30-3-1966 and handed over a receipt, but in spite of it, he had filed the present suit, on 6-4-1966 challenging the alienation made on his behalf. Sub-bammal died in 1950 within two years of the execution of the registered Will. Second plaintiff was born several years after her death and therefore he is not entitled to any properties as a legatee under the Will. As for the first plaintiff, he having received his share of Rs. 700 on 30-3-1966 has also ratified the sale and hence he cannot file a suit for partition of his share. So far as items 1 to 5 of plaint A schedule is concerned, a preliminary decree was passed in respect of one third share of plaintiff No. 1, whereas the claim of the second plaintiff was dismissed. Regarding items 6 and 7 with which defendants 5, 6 and 8 are concerned, the suit claim was dismissed. Defendants 1 to 4 had remained ex parte in the proceedings.

3. The lower appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court which has resulted in the filing of the present second appeal in so far as the reliefs claimed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 had not been acceded to by the courts below.

4. Mr. T.R. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that (1) under Ex. B. 1 registered will dated 13-5-1948, the properties belonging to the other of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 7 and 9 were bequeathed to a class of parsons, who would came within the ambit of explanation to S.111 of the Succession Act and that (2) the vendees under Ex. B.2 cannot challenge the right of the second plaintiff to the properties when they have taken the sale deed from him as well; that (3) if it is held that the second plaintiff had not acquired any rights in the property pursuant to Ex. B.1, when under Ex. B.2, each one of the sharers had claimed to have conveyed their share, the residual one fourth share is yet to be conveyed by the other three sharers; that (4) in view of S.11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 (Act 32 of 1956) the plaintiffs' mother cannot sell immoveable properties, when the father is alive, that (5) merely because first plaintiff has received a sum of Rs. 700 under Ex. B.5, dated 30-3-1968, it cannot constitute a ratification of a non est transaction or a void sale under Ex B.2, of his share of the properties, and that (6) facts and circumstances of this case do not enable respondents herein to plead the doctrine of election estoppel, a probation and reprobation and the plaintiffs are entitled to have the relief of partition for their one half share in the properties.

5. Mr. Parasaran, learned counsel for the res