Minor is bound by transaction entered in to by guardian.

Plaintiff is the appellant.

.2. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows: The suit properties originally belonged to one Pichumani Iyer and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. The plaintiff purchased the properties from the heirs of the said Pichumani viz., defendants 6 to 9 on 1. 1961. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. It is alleged that Pichumani Iyer had executed an agreement of sale in favour of one Mallaiah Chettiar in respect of the suit properties. Mallaiah Chettiar obtained a decree in O.S.No.214 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Manamadurai, for specific performance of the agreement against Pichumani Iyer. Subsequently he died. The defendants 3 to 5 are his legal representatives. Defendants 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.5 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Sivagangai against the heirs of Pichumani Iyer, plaintiff and Mallaiah Chettiar for declaration and possession claiming that the suit properties are the trust properties belonging to the defendants 1 and 2 temple. It was decreed. But, in the appeal the decree of the trial court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The second appeal preferred by the defendants 1 and 2 was also dismissed. In the said suit, defendants 1 and 2 contended that the properties were the separate properties of Ranga Iyer, paternal uncle of Pichumani Iyer and he dedicated the property in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 temple. It was also contended that Pichumani Iyer later ratified the dedication. The allegation that the properties were the separate properties of Ranga Iyer and they were dedicated in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 are all false. The dedication if any has never been acted upon. Pichumani never admitted the rights of defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 12 to 14 are the heirs of one Narayanasami in whose favour Pichumani Iyer had mortgaged the suit property. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.l80 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Manamadurai against defendants 10 to 14 for redemption, and for recovery of arrears of rent or damages for use and occupation. The appeal arising out of the said decree is pending. Defendants 1 and 2 who filed O.S.No.24 of 1975 for declaration that the suit properties belonged to them later on withdrew the same. But, they filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board against the plaintiff and the deceased Mallaiah Chettiar claiming that the suit properties are trust properties belonging to them. It was ordered in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board failed. Hence the suit.

.3. The defendants 1 and 2 in their counter written statement contend as follows: The suit properties were the separate properties of Ranga Iyer who dedicated the same for pooja and neivedhyam expenses of defendants 1 and 2 temple. In the partition deed effected between Ranga Iyer and Pichumani Iyer on 111. 1913, the properties have been described as endowed to the temple. The endowment made by the Manager of the joint family is therefore binding on Pichumani and he had ratified the same subsequently. The income from the properties were utilised towards the expenses of performing pooja and neivedhyam in the temple of defendants 1 and 2. The temple has acquired prescriptive title to the suit properties. Pichumani Iyer and his heirs are therefore estopped from claiming the suit properties as their properties. The vendors of the plaintiff have no right over the suit properties. The earlier proceedings in which defendants 1 and 2 are not parties are not binding on them. The High Court has held in the second appeal that the properties have been dedicated in favour of the temple of defendants 1 and 2 are trust properties. The High Court has also directed the defendants 1 and 2 to approach the Hindu Religious and Charitab