The severance of status is effected from the date of the suit conditional on the Court being able to find that the suit when filed was for the benefit of the minor.

Ramesam, J.

1. The facts out of which this revision petition arises are as follows: - O.S. No. 36 of 1930 was filed for partition in the Subordinate Judges Court of Ellore on behalf of an infant Plaintiff by his mother as next friend. The 1st Defendant is an uncle of the Plaintiff; the 2nd Defendant is his son and the 3rd Defendant is the Plaintiffs half-brother. The Plaintiff, his deceased father and the Defendants were members of a joint-family. The Plaintiffs father died on the 16th May, 1929, and the suit was instituted on the 29th October, 1929, on the allegation that the Defendants were misappropriating the Plaintiffs share in the family properties and that they refused to deliver the Plaintiffs share though demanded and turned him and his mother out of the family house in September, 1929. While the suit was pending the Plaintiff died on the 21st March, 1931. His mother then applied to be brought on record as legal representative. The Subordinate Judge passed an order directing that the Plaintiffs mother be brought on record as legal representative. He also directed that an issue be framed in the suit as to whether the suit was instituted in the interests of the minor and whether, had he survived, a decree for partition with effect from the date of the plaint at the latest ought to have been passed. Against this order the Defendants filed this Revision Petition. The Revision Petition originally came on for arguments before our brothers Venkatasubba Rao and Reilly, JJ., who differed and referred the following questions to a Full Bench:

1. Does a suit by a minor for partition abate if he dies before the Court has found that partition is for his benefit? or

2. Is it open to his legal representative to proceed with the trial and obtain a decree on his showing that when the partition suit was instituted it was for the benefit of the minor?

2. So far as an adult Plaintiff is concerned, it is now established law that the filing of a suit for partition amounts to a definite and unambiguous intention to separate vide Suraj Naraih v. Iqbal Narain (1912) L.R. 40 IndAp 40 : I.L.R. 35 All 80 : 24 M.L.J. 345 (P.C.). A member of a joint family can separate from the family even prior to a suit provided he declares a definite and unambiguous intention to separate and communicates it to the other members of the family vide Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj (1916) L.R. 43 IndAp 151 : I.L.R. 43 Cal. 1031 : M.L.J. 455 (P.C.). The question now arises how far are these principles to be applied to the case of a minor. If it can be said that a suit for partition can always be filed on behalf of a minor and there are no limitations as to the granting of a decree in such a suit, no difficulty arises. But while a suit on behalf of a minor can be filed by any person as next friend, Courts have laid down that in the case of a suit for partition the suit ought not to be decreed unless it is for the benefit of the minor. The reason for such a limitation imposed by the Courts is not that there cannot be a partition between a minor and the other members of the family but it is possible that the suit may not be for his benefit. When it is remembered that any person can sue on behalf of a minor as next friend it is easy to imagine cases where the partition is not for his benefit. If the property is not being properly managed or if his rights are denied, it is obvious that he should have a partition vide Kamakshi Animal v. Chidambara Reddi (1866) 3 M.H.C.R. 94. But where the property is being well managed and the minor is well looked after, there is no need of a suit for partition and it is possible that a meddlesome next friend without keeping in his mind the minors interests may file a suit for partition on account of some misunderstanding of his own with the members of the family or some other motive. It is to avoid such a contingency that the rule has been observed by the Courts. In Nallappa Reddi v. Balammal (1864) 2 M.H.C.R. 182 a private partition