Minor cannot say mother not to act as guardian.

The plaintiff who failed before the trial court is the appellant in the above appeal. The second defendant is the father of the plaintiff and the third defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. The first defendant is the purchaser of the suit property under the sale deed dated 16. 1956 which is sought to be cancelled in the suit. According to the plaintiff the suit property originally belonged to late V.Arumuga Mudaliar, the father of the second defendant and paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. He died on 8. 1953 leaving his widow Kuppammal, the second defendant and the grandson, the plaintiff. On his death, the plaintiff and the second defendant became entitled to the suit property and the said Kuppammal became entitled to the right of maintenance. Under a release deed dated 9. 1953, the second defendant released and extinguished all his rights in favour of the plaintiff. So the plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit property subject to the liability of maintaining the said Kuppammal who died in the year 1960. The grandfather of the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.1,500 from the first defendant and executed a deed of simple mortgage on 5. 1953. The second defendant was also a party to the document. There were litigations between the plaintiff family and the first defendant. Ultimately the defendants 2 and 3 collu-sively and fraudulently executed a sale deed dated 16. 1956 with respect to the suit property for a sum of Rs.14,000 in favour of the first defendant, though the property was fetching easily more than Rs.35,000 that too without any legal necessity. The said sale is a mala fide, fraudulent, collusive, illegal, unenforceable and void transaction and not binding on the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff has filed the suit for cancellation of the said sale deed dated 16. 1956. The defendants 2 and 3 remained absent and were set ex parte. The first defendant filed his written statement. His main contention is that the suit is not maintainable and the suit is barred by limitation and barred by res judicata.. To avoid the decree obtained by one Venkanna Choudhary in O.S. No.1667 of 1950, a false and frivo-lous document was executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff, when he was minor. Finding that the property could not be saved from the creditors, Arumugha Mudaliar agreed to sell the property with a view to benefit the minor and sold the suit property to the first defendant on 16. 1956. The debt is not immoral or avyavaharika as stated by the plaintiff. The sale is a geaine transaction and having secured the benefit to the minor and having accepted the same throughout it will not be open to the plaintiff on his attaining majority to give a go-by to the same. The parties have taken the other usual pleas which I will consider if it becomes necessary in the course of the judgment.

2. On the above relevant pleas, the following issues were framed for trial:

(1) Whether the sale in favour of the first defendant is vitiated by fraud and collusion?

(2) Are the debts referred to in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff avyavaharika in nature?

(3) Is the suit barred by res judicata?

(4) Is the plaintiff entitled to question the sale after accepting the benefits conferred upon him?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits? If so, at what rate? (6) To what reliefs?

3. Originally the trial court by its judgment dated 10. 1973 found that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against that judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No.74 of 1974. This Court in the order dated 111. 1979 set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 10. 1973 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal after framing of the additional issues. After remand, the following additional issues were framed:

(1) Whether the suit propertyis a joint family property of the second defendant?

(2) Whether the sale deed dated 16. 1956 is binding on t