Director given for following proper procedure.

AR.Lakshmanan, J.

Defendants 1 and 4 are the appellants in this appeal. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 2, 3 and 5. Respondents 2 to 4 viz., defendants 2, 3 and 5 were given up since they remained ex parte.

2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit properties, which are admittedly joint family properties having been allotted to the share of his father (1st defendant) in a partition between him, his brother and their father. The plaintiffs case is as follows: The plaintiff is the undivided son of the 1st defendant. His mother Rajamma1/3rd defendant was married to the 1st defendant about 25 years prior to the suit according to the custom obtaining in the community to which they belong. Two sons were born to the 1st defendant through the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff is one of the sons. The other son, who was elder to the plaintiff, died a few months after his birth.

3. The 1st defendant married a second wife. The plaintiff’s mother 3rd defendant preferred a complaint against the 1st defendant under Sec.494 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.34 of 1960 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate No.2, Salem, and at the intervention of some mediators, the parties compounded the offence.

.4. The 1st defendant obtained from the plaintiff’s maternal grand-father/2nd defendant, who purported to act as the guardian for the plaintiff, a document alleged to be a release deed releasing the share of the plaintiff in the joint family properties for a stated consideration of Rs.2,500. The said document was executed on 37. 1960 and marked as Ex.A-1. According to the plaintiff Ex.A-1 is void and inoperative in law. The 2nd defendant, grandfather of the plaintiff was neither a de facto nor de jure guardian of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was, at that time, under the care and protection of his mother, the 3rd defendant. In law, the father is the natural guardian and next to him, the mother is the natural guardian, and when both the father and the mother of the plaintiff are alive, the 2nd defendant, who is the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff had no right to act as the guardian on behalf of the plaintiff and execute any document on his behalf. Further there was absolutely no necessity to release the plaintiff’s share in the joint family properties much less for a grossly in adequate consideration of Rs.2,500.

5. The plaintiff would submit that under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 even the natural guardian cannot dispose of the minor’s property without the previous sanction of the court. Ex.A-1 executed by the 2nd defendant Subbaraya Gounder, maternal grand-father of the plaintiff, dealing with the plaintiff’s share in the joint family properties, is absolutely void under the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Ex.A-1 release deed is void in law and has no legal effect and is non-est. The plaintiff must, therefore, be deemed to be continuing to be a joint family member and must be deemed to be in joint constructive possession of the suit properties, which are joint family properties. In the absence of a release deed, the properties continued to be joint family properties of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, and the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a half share in the properties.

6. The plaintiff issued a notice to the 1st defendant on 2. 1975 demanding partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties. A reply dated 12. 1975 was sent by the 1st defendant containing false and untenable allegations.

7. The sole defendant Athiappa Gounder filed a petition in I.A.No.732 of 1979 to implead defendants 2 and 3 as parties to the suit and the said petition was allowed. Defendants 4 and 5, who are the sons of the 1st defendant through one Valliammal, were added as per orders in I.A.No.105 of 1987 dated 13. 1987. According to the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 5 are unnecessary parties and they