The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale deeds executed by the father, even if the minors were shown as vendors but not represented by their natural guardian, were valid and binding on the minors, based on the principles of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and relevant legal precedents.

K. GOVINDARAJAN, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs who failed in their attempt to get a decree before the trial court and before the learned Single Judge.

2. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 7/1979, on the file of the learned Sub-Judge, Namakkal, who are the children of one Srinivasan, the 1st defendant, born through his 1st and 2nd wives, filed the said suit for partition of the ‘C’ Schedule properties, saying that the alienations made by the father with reference to ‘B’ Schedule properties in favour of defendants 2 to 23 and 28, do not bind the plaintiffs. It is relevant to mention that even on an earlier occasion, a suit in O.S. No. 58/1956 was filed on behalf of the minors through their respective mothers for partition, which was dismissed for default.

3. Defendants 2 to 23 and 28 contested the suit contending inter alia that the sale deeds executed in their favour are valid in law as the same had been executed by Kartha along with minors.

4. The trial court decreed the suit for partition declaring half share in the northern portion in item No.

6 in ‘C’ Schedule properties, 2/3rd share in item Nos. 11 to 15 of the ‘C’ Schedule properties and 4/5th share in item Nos. 17 to 22 in ‘C’ Schedule properties. The trial court found that the sale deeds executed under Exs.B60, B85, B62 and B42 are valid only in respect of 1st defendants share and not valid and binding the plaintiffs. On that basis, the trial court decreed 2/3rd share in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the ‘C’ Schedule properties, which are item Nos. 11 and 13 to 15. Aggrieved against the same, defendants 15, 16, 19 and 61 to 65 preferred appeal in A.S. Nos. 236/1984. Defendants 61 to 65 are the Legal Representatives of 21st defendant. 35th defendant who is the Legal Representative of the 20th defendant, preferred another appeal in A.S. No. 437/1984. The 36th defendant, who is another Legal Representative of the 20th defendant, preferred another appeal in A.S. No. 611/1985. The learned Judge in the common judgment, and decree dated 21.9.2001, allowed the appeals by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court in so far as they relate to the sale deeds, namely, Exs.B60, B85, B62 and B42 which are the subject matter in the appeals. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that in the sale deeds which are the subject matter in the appeals, though the 1st defendant also has been shown as one of the vendors, the minors who have also been shown as vendors, they have not been represented by natural guardian, namely, the 1st defendant, but by the maternal grandfather, thereby the said sale deeds do not bind the minors and, if at all, the purchasers can claim right only in the share of the 1st defendant. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submission, relied on a number of decisions.

6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that when law permits the Kartha, to sell the Hindu joint family properties for the benefit of the family, it binds the minors also. Merely because the minors were shown in the sale deeds as vendors, represented by their maternal grandfather, it cannot be said that the sale deeds cannot be put against the interest and rights of the minors in the said properties. He also relied on certain decisions in support of his submission.

7. From the above, the only question that arises for determination in this case is:—

“Can the appellants/plaintiffs ignore the sale deeds only on the ground that the minors have not been represented by the Kartha while executing the sale deeds?”

8. We are not concerned with the other items of the Schedule mentioned properties. In this case, we are now concerned only with respect to item Nos. 11 and 13 to 15, which were sold under Exs.B60, B85, B62 and B42. In all these sale deeds, the 1st defendant also was shown as 1st vendor. The mother of the 1st defendan