Walsh, J.

1. The plaintiff and defendant 3 are sons of one Veerasami who died on 14th May 1926. The plaintiffs deceased father and defendant 1 were carrying on a partnership trade. On 29th May 1926 defendent 1 got a release deed executed by defendant 3 and by the mother of plaintiff as the latters guardian by which plaintiff and defendant 3 received Rs. 9,000 for their share in the partnership. Plaintiff filed this suit for accounts of the partnership to be taken. He stated that the release deed was not binding on him as his mother was neither de jure nor de facto his guardian in executing it, and moreover that it was obtained by fruad, coercion and undue nfluence.

2. Defendant 1 contended that plaintiff was bound by the release and had to get it set aside before he could sue. As the decisions of the High Court appeared to be conflicting as to whether such a deed had to be set aside, it having been held by a single Judge of this Court in Doraiswami v. Thengavelu AIR1929Mad668 , that it was necessary to set aside such a deed by suit, but previously by a Bench of two Judges in Veeraraghavulu v. Sreeramulu AIR1928Mad816 , that it was not necessary, plaintiff asked to amend the plai