The main legal point established in the judgment is that a release deed relinquishing a minor's share in joint family property without court permission is void under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 211. 1994 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.603 of 1989, which was filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants seeking partition. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Niggard and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the averments in the plaint would run thus:

One Moola Gounder and his wife Sellammal (fifth defendant) had two sons, viz., the defendants 1 and 2 and three daughters, viz., the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4. The suit property described in the schedule of the plaint belonged to the said joint family comprised of Moola Gounder and his two sons, viz., D1 Palanisamy and D2 Arumugam. Moola Gounder died on 212. 1971 intestate; consequently, his 1/3 rd share in the suit properties devolved upon his wife D5 and his four children, viz., the plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 4 and they have been in joint possession of the suit property. Consequently, the suit for partition has come to be filed. Such joint possession and cultivation of the suit property causes great hardship whereupon the plaintiff demanded partition which ended in a fiasco. On 012. 1989, she ascertained from defendants 1 and 2 that they were having no intention of partitioning the property whereupon she reliably learnt that defendants 1 and 2 were making arrangements to alienate the suit properties to D6. Subsequently, she came to know that defendants 1 and 2 sold certain portions of the suit properties in favour of defendants 7 to 11 and such sales are void and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3. Per contra, gain saying and controverting, denying and refuting the allegations/averments in the plaint, the second defendant filed the written statement, the warp and woof of it would run thus:

The joint possession as alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff is false. On 10.03.1972 itself, the plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 5 jointly executed a registered release deed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 relinquishing all their rights in the schedule mentioned properties. At that time, since the plaintiff was a minor her mother represented her in the release deed. On behalf of second defendant D1 acted as guardian and accepted the release deed. After D2 attained majority, D1 and D2 effected the partition on 24.04.1980 vide partition deed and ever since such partition, D1 and D2 are enjoying their respective shares in the suit property independently. The defendants 1 and 2 were responsible for giving the plaintiff in marriage by providing her with seer from out of D1 and D2s earnings. Similarly one other sister was also given in marriage by them. The respective husbands of the plaintiff and D4, signed as attesting witnesses to the partition deed dated 24.04.1980. Hence the suit is untenable.

4. The fourth defendant was having no objection for decreeing the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff and in fact she prays for partition and for allotment of her share.

5. The seventh defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by D8 to D11 in support of the statement filed by D2. He would also contend that the sale deed dated 112. 1985 executed by D2 in his favour relating to a portion of the suit property is valid. The fact remains that D7 to D10 purchased various portions of the suit properties as per sale deeds dated 112. 1985 and as per them they are the bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

6. The plaintiff filed the reply statement setting out the averments the pith and marrow of them would run thus:

The plaintiff was a minor on the date of the alleged release deed said to have been executed by her mother who had no authority to release the share of the plaintiff. In fact, till the second defendant filed his written statement and