JUDGMENT

(PRAYER: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Pattukottai, dated 14.02.1991 made in O.S.No.55 of 1987.)

1. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit in respect of ''A'' schedule property and item Nos.1 and 2 of ''B'' schedule property, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal, are as follows:-

3.1. The suit properties are joint family property of the plaintiff''s father consisting of the plaintiff and his father one Singaram. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the wife of the said Singaram. Second defendant is the mother of Singaram i.e., paternal grandmother of the plaintiff. Defendants 3 and 4 are purchaser of the ''A'' schedule properties. Defendants 5 to 9 were impleaded as legal heirs of the third defendant in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father Singaram was addicted to alcohol and he was leading a wayward life. He never cared for the welfare of the plaintiff, who was minor at that time. The plaintiff was always under the care of his mother, the first defendant. Second defendant remarried one Sabapathy, after the death of his husband and left the joint family. Second defendant is living with her husband Sabapathy and also having a daughter by name Meenakshi through the said Sabapathy. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant is not entitled to any interest in the suit properties.

3.2. The first defendant, mother of the plaintiff was an illiterate. After the death of the plaintiff''s father, the properties were looked after by one Chellan Amabalam, who is the father of the second defendant. The income from the joint family properties are sufficient enough for the maintenance of the joint family. There was no necessity at all to alienate any of the joint family properties.

3.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the third defendant, taking advantage of the reckless life led by the father of the plaintiff, registered a sale deed in his favour in respect of portion of ''A'' schedule properties without any consideration. There was no necessity for the plaintiff''s father to sell the portion of ''A'' schedule properties to the third defendant. At any event, the sale is not for any legal necessity. Therefore, the same is not binding on the plaintiff. Similarly, after the death of the plaintiff''s father, the plaintiff was under the custody of his mother, first defendant. Taking advantage of the illiteracy of the first defendant, the 4th defendant also registered a sale deed in his favour in respect of a portion of ''A'' schedule properties by the first defendant. The above sale is also without consideration. There was no necessity for the first defendant to sell the suit property to the fourth defendant. Therefore, the said sale is also not binding on the plaintiff. Besides, there was no permission obtained under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Therefore, the present suit has been filed within three years, after the plaintiff attained majority for setting aside the sales in favour of the third respondent and fourth defendant and also claiming 3/4th share in the ''B'' schedule properties.

4. The first defendant-mother of the plaintiff was remained ex parte. Second defendant, paternal grandmother of the plaintiff filed a written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff. It is the case of the second defendant that the father of the plaintiff was never addicted to alcohol and never led any wayward life. Since he has sustained loss in agriculture, he has borrowed certain debts viz., on 13.07.1964 by way of mortgage for a sum of Rs.1,000/-, on 24.04.1966 by way of pro-note for a sum of Rs.1,000/- and also on 02.05.1966 by way of pro-note for a sum of Rs.1,000/-, Similar