S.S. SUNDAR, J.

1. The plaintiff, who is a minor, represented by her mother in the suit in O.S.No.826 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur, is the sole appellant in this appeal.

2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the minor plaintiff, who was in the womb, is entitled to reopen the partition entered into between other coparcener, when she was in the womb, on the ground that the partition is unjustified, unequal, unfair and detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff.

3. Though the suit was filed with a lengthy plaint, having regard to the nature of dispute in this second appeal, the following facts are relevant:

3.1.The appellant filed the suit for a declaration that the partition deed dated 03.12.2004 executed by defendants 1 and 2 is void and not binding upon the plaintiff and consequently any documents or instruments or deed executed by defendants based on the partition deed are not binding upon the plaintiff's share. The plaintiff also prayed for granting a decree for partition dividing the suit properties into four equal shares and to allot one share to the plaintiff, and for consequential permanent inj