Minor's transactions must be overseen by a guardian; courts cannot alter decrees affecting parties not appealing, ensuring proper legal processes are followed.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The present Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2021 made in A.S. No.35 of 2018 on the file of Sub Court, Arakkonam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2017 made in O.S. No.99/2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholingur.

2. The appellant is the 7^th defendant in the above suit. The 1^st respondent, as plaintiff, filed the above suit for partition against the defendants 1 to 6 and separate possession of her 1/6 share in the suit properties by metes and bounds and for permanent injunction restraining the 7^th defendant from encumbering the suit properties to the third party.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that, the 5^th defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 and 6 respectively. They are the legal heirs of one Late Anandan. The scheduled mentioned properties were acquired by Late Anandan who died on 20.04.2006 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 as his legal heirs. Despite repeated demands, the defendants 5 and 6 failed to come forward to divide the suit properties and alienated the suit item Nos.1 to 6 to the 7^th defendant. The defendants 5 and 6 are not the absolute owners of the above properties and they have no right to sell the above suit properties to the 7^th defendant. The alleged alienation done behind the back of the plaintiff is not valid and binding upon her. While so, the 7^th defendant is attempting to alienate the suit properties to third parties. Hence, the plaintiff filed the above suit for partition.

4. On the contrary, the 6^th defendant would submit that, his father did not receive any sale consideration for the power deed executed in favour of the 7^th defendant and that he along with his mother executed the sale deed dated 20.11.2006 due to compulsion by the 7^th defendant. His further contention is that on the date of the alleged sale deed, he was a minor and therefore, the sale deed is not valid and binding on him.

5. The 7^th defendant would contend that, on 28.06.2004, the said Anandan executed a Power of Attorney deed after receiving a sum of Rs.1,66,250/- as sale consideration. Hence, the Power Deed is coupled with interest and the same cannot be terminated on the death of the plaintiff's father Anandan. Thereafter, the defendants 5 and 6 executed the sale deed on 20.11.2006 in his favour in respect of suit item Nos.1 to 6. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2017 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding that the deed of power of attorney executed by the plaintiff's father came to an end on the death of plaintiff's father and the sale executed in respect of the suit item Nos. 1 to 6 by the defendants 5 and 6 is valid only with regard to the 5^th defendant's 1/7 share. Since the 6^th defendant was found to be a minor on the date of execution of the sale deed, the trial court held that the sale deed dated 20.11.2006 is not binding on the 6^th defendant. The trial court allotted 1/6 share to the plaintiff in the suit item Nos. 7 to 9 and also granted permanent injunction restraining the 7^th defendant from alienating the suit properties. Aggrieved by this, the 7^th defendant preferred the appeal suit in A.S. No.35/2018 before Sub Court, Arakkonam. The first appellate court by its judgment and decree dated 20.11.2021 confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. But, also held that, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7 share in the sui