The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the powers of alienation of joint family property by the father/manager under Hindu Law.

1. This Second Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree dated 20.01.2009 passed in Appeal Suit No.70 of 2007 by the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, wherein the Judgment and decree dated 12.03.2007 passed in Original Suit No.86 of 2005 by the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti are reversed.

2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.86 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit property, wherein the present appellants and respondents 2 and 3 have been arrayed as defendants.

3. The contraction of the plaint is stated like thus: The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are sisters and their father's name is Gurusamy Naicker. The suit property and some other properties are originally belonged to the said Gurusamy Naicker and his two brothers namely Kandasamy Naicker and Krishnasamy Naicker and prior to 40 years a partition has been effected amongst three brothers, wherein the suit property has been allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The first defendant has been given in marriage in the year 1980 and the second defendant has got married in the year 1984. The marriage of the plaintiff has been performed on 08.09.2002. The suit property is a joint family property of the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and their father, wherein the plaintiff is having half share as per the provisions of amendment made in the Hindu Succession Act. The father of the plaintiff without her knowledge and at the instigation of his brothers has executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the third defendant. The fourth defendant has falsely created a power of attorney deed so as to execute a sale deed on behalf of the father of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff is having half share in the suit property, the present Suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants 1 and 2 it is averred that the defendants 1 and 2 are having equal share in the suit property and for the purpose of working out their share, the defendants 1 and 2 are ready to pay necessary Court fee and therefore, a preliminary decree may be passed in accordance with law.

5. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants 3 and 4 it is averred that the suit property is originally belonged to the erstwhile Hindu joint family consisted of Gurusamy Naicker, Kandasamy Naicker and Krishnasamy Naicker. But it is false to aver that prior to 40 years, a partition has been effected, wherein the suit property has been allotted to the share of father of the plaintiff. It is also equally false to aver that the plaintiff has been given in marriage on 08.09.2002. The father of the plaintiff and a son of his brother have executed a power of attorney deed in favour of the fourth defendant, whereby authorised him to sell the suit property. Under the said circumstances, the fourth defendant has sold the suit property in favour of the third defendant. The present Suit has been instituted without including all the joint family properties. The heirs of brothers of Gurusamy Naicker have not been impleaded in the present Suit and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties.

6. On the basis of rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the Suit simply on the ground that the present Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.70 of 2007 on the file of the first appellate Court.

7. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has allowed the Appeal, whereby and whereunder set aside the Judgment and decree passed by t