The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the Exhibit A-1 settlement deed and its implications, as well as the validity of the Exhibit A-2 sale deed in relation to family necessity and welfare of the minors.

G. RAJASURIA, J.

1. This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1992 made in O.S. No. 3463 of 1985 on the file of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to the litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

The suit property, which is a plot and the house standing thereon was originally purchased during the year 1928 by the plaintiffs paternal grand father, viz., C.S. Subramania Achary and he made improvements in the suit property also. When he was 71 years old, he thought it necessary to make some provisions for his grand children; whereupon he executed the Exhibit A-1 Settlement Deed dated 9.2.1967 granting life estate in favour of his son, the first plaintiff Nagabushanam and absolute interest in favour of a his children and also reserving life estate in favour of himself and his wife Sovadambal Ammal; as on the date of emergence of Exhibit A-1, the children of Nagabushanam-the first plaintiff, were minors. It so happened that during the year 1974, the said Subramania Achari without any valid reason and without necessity to benefit the minor children of Nagabushanam including the plaintiff herein in contravention to Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act sold away the suit property in favour of one Rajabather Chettiar, the father of the fourth defendant on 18.1.1974 as per Exhibit A-2 The said sale deed is invalid. The plaintiff was born on 19.6.1963 and hence after attaining majority, but within three years from the date of majority, she has filed the suit seeking partition of her 1/3 rd share in-the suit property and also for profits.

3. Per contra, impugning and denying, challenging and gain saying the allegations/averments in the plaint, the first defendant tiled the written statement, the nitty gritty of it would run thus:

Since the Settlor was alive, he wanted the property to be sold for the benefit of the minors and the first defendant could not go against the wish of the Settlor; thereupon, Exhibit A-2 emerged. The said sale was for family necessity only. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The second defendant, the son of the first defendant filed the written statement with the averments thus:

There was no family necessity to sell the suit property and Exhibit A-2 emerged illegally. D2 simply signed as mandated by his grand father and father. The said Exhibit A-2 is a void document and not binding on D2.

5. The quintessence of the case of the third defendant as found set out in the written statement would run thus:

Supporting the averments in the plaint, the third defendant filed the written statement. D3 also claimed relief on par with the relief claimed by the plaintiff.

6. On the contrary, the fourth defendant filed the written statement, the pith and marrow of it would run thus:

C.S. Subramania Achary, who purchased the suit property during the year 1928, settled the said property as per Exhibit A-1 in accordance with the terms and conditions set out therein. Subsequently, the Settlor, due to impecunious and penurious circumstances and his difficulties in meeting the expenses, relating to the marriage of the second defendant as arranged by the first defendant and out of necessity, sold the suit property as per Exhibit A-1, wherein the Settlor, his son and grand children are parties. In Exhibit A-1, the sale consideration contemplated was Rs. 30,000/- and out of which, Rs. 20,000/- was retained by the fattier of D4 for paying the same to the then two minors, viz., Uma Devi and Nagalakshmi, after they attain majority. The father of D4 has also been paying the monthly interest of Rs. 200/- regularly till 1961. Subsequently, D1 refused to receive the interest and also the principal sum of Rs. 20,000/- and D4 being the daughter of Rajabather