JUDGMENT :

P.T. Asha, J.

1. The defendant/respondent in the final decree proceedings is the appellant before this Court. The parties are referred to in the same litigative status as in the Trial Court. The brief resume of the facts that have culminated in the filing of the above Second Appeal are as follows:

2. The plaintiff, minor son represented by his natural guardian, mother had filed the suit O.S. No. 1 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ponneri, seeking for a partition of his half share in the suit schedule properties against the defendant, his father. It was the case of the plaintiff that the properties were ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendant and that the defendant had fallen into bad ways and had been spending money to meet his extravagant living style and for which purpose he had started borrowing heavily and to settle these loans the defendant was alienating the ancestral properties in which the plaintiff also had a right.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property had been allotted to the defendant under a compromise decree entered into in the suit O.S. No. 334 of 1992 which was instituted by the sisters of the defendant against the defendant, his brother and mother for partition. Thereafter, the matter was compromised and under the compromise decree dated 29.04.1998. The suit schedule property had fallen into the share of the defendant. The plaintiff would contend that on 26.12.2001 he had issued a notice to the defendant and to the creditors warning them from entering into any transaction with reference to the suit schedule properties. Since there was no response the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

4. The said suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia contending that the mother of the plaintiff had deserted him and that due to this mental agony he was forced to give up his employment and that he was unemployed and in order to meet the expenses of maintaining the plaintiff and his mother, the defendant was constrained to sell the properties as Kartha of the Joint family.

5. The defendant would further contend that in the year 1988, he had sold an extent of 0.05 1/2 cents to develop the family and that he had to alienate another portion to maintain the family. It is his case that since the alienation were being done in his capacity as a Kartha the plaintiff could not question the same. He therefore sought for the dismissal of the said suit.

6. By the judgment and Decree dated 13.07.2005, the suit was decreed. The said decree was challenged by the defendant in A.S. No. 42 of 2007 on the file of the District Court, Chengalpet. Since another son was born to the defendant and his wife, the learned Judge had modified the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court by granting the 1/3rd share each to the two sons and the defendant.

7. Thereafter, the plaintiff along with his brother had filed I.A. No. 408 of 2010 for passing a final decree on 08.03.2009. To this interlocutory application the defendant had contended that he was a practising Advocate and was maintaining the plaintiffs and their mother and the only intention of the mother was to grab the defendant's property. He would further contend that he had instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P. No. 72 of 2011. He therefore sought for the dismissal of the final decree proceedings.

8. The Court below had proceeded to appoint the Advocate Commissioner. After visiting the suit property the Advocate Commissioner had submitted his report dated 03.03.2017, thereafter the final decree was passed by the judgment and Decree dated 27.06.2017, in and by which the minors were allotted their 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and the share was indicated with the Blue colour in the surveyor's sketch.

9. The said judgment and Decree was passed after taking into account the objections that the defendant had taken which are as follows:

(a) The father's name of the defendant had been wrongly given;

(b) The A