Maintainability of the suit filed by children.

Srinivasan, J.

This appeal arises out of an usual Hindu Law Suit, if we can use that expression, the meaning thereby a litigation initiated by the minor children of a Hindu father challenging the alienations effected by him on grounds of illegality and immorality. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the court below are the appellants. The 5th plaintiff, is the with the 1st defendant. Plaintiffs 1,2 and 4 are the sons and the third plaintiffs is the daughter of the 5th plaintiff and the first defendant. At the time when the suit was filed, plaintiffs 1 to 4 were minors. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 have attained majority since then and have been now declared as major. The 4th plaintiffis nearing completion of 18 years.

2. The first defendant got items 1 to 19 in a family partition under Ex.A-1, dated 8. 1974. He was directed by the deed of partition to discharge debts to the tune of Rs.19,240,90. The first defendant got item 20 as heir to his sister Asupathi Ammal who got it under settlement deed dated 27. 1958 (Ex.B-33). The first defendant alienated almost all the properties between 15. 1975 and 6. 1979. The present suit was filed on 18. 1979. In the plaint, it was alleged that the first defendant was leading an immoral and wayward life and he was addicted to drink, gambling and other bad habits. It was stated that he was not attending to the family affairs and has squandered major portions of the family properties. It was also alleged that the properties was sold for inadequate consideration and the sale proceeds were utilised for illegal and immoral purposes of the 1st defendant. On that basis, the plaintiffs claimed 3/4th share in the suit properties besides provision for the maintenance of 3rd and 5th plaintiffs.

3. The first defendant remained ex parte as usual. The other defendants excepting the 9th defendant contested the suit. They have filed written statement challenging the plaint averments that the properties were joint family properties. The defendants contended that they were exclusive properties of the first defendant and he was not guilty of any of the bad habits alleged in plaint. It was also pleaded that the alienations were for adequate consideration’ and for binding necessities. In short, the plea of the defendants is that the suit for partition is unsustainable and all the alienations are binding on the plaintiffs. A further plea was raised that the suit was not maintainable without a prayer for setting aside the alienation. Yet another plea was that the suit was not properly valued and adequate Court-fee has not been paid.

.4. The trial court held that items 1 to 19 were joint family properties, but alienations were all for necessity and the proceeds went in discharge of antecedent debts as well as ancestral joint family debts. It was found that there was absolutely no evidence to prove

.that the first defendant was addicted to bad habits. The trial court also found that item 20 belonged to the 1st defendant exclusively and the alienation of the said item was also for necessity. The trial court further held that the valuation of the suit was proper and adequate court-fees had been paid. The suit was dismissed with costs.

5. In the present appeal, the main contention of learned senior counsel for the appellants is that even in the written statements, it is admitted that the entire consideration was not utilised by the alienees directly for discharging the alleged debts and a major part of it was paid by them in cash to the 1st defendant. According to learned counsel, that shows that the 1st defendant had utilised the money for his own purposes and the evidence on record makes out that he was addicted to bad habits. Learned counsel contends that none of the alienations is binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs should be given a share in the properties as prayed for by them.

.6. Before taking upon the question of the binding nature of the alienations, we would discuss the maintainability of the suit w