JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal arises out of a partition suit. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.19 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar, seeking partition and separate possession of 1/14th share in the suit properties.

2.During the pendency of the suit, the 6th item of the suit schedule was purchased by the appellant herein. Therefore, the prayer was amended as 3/9th share in the suit. The plaintiff was a minor, when the suit was filed. She examined herself as PW1. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The appellant examined himself as DW1. Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court granted 1/14th share in the suit properties. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed A.S.No.15 of 2009. The first appellate court, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2002, dismissed the first appeal, confirming the decision of the trial court. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal came to be filed.

3. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law;

"Have not the Courts below committed error in law in holding that the suit for partition by a minor is maintanable in respect of item 6 of the suit property when there are no pleadings challenging the alienation made by the father of the plaintiff?"

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser. The 6th item of the suit schedule property was purchased by the appellant vide Ex.B2 dated 24.08.2005, in which the plaintiff was shown as a co-nominee party.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would also argue that during the pendency of these proceedings, the plaintiff’s mother had taken a certain sum of from the appellants. The grievance is that the plaintiff’s mother did not act as per the representation.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and decree do not warrant any interference. 8. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the

https://www.mhc.tn.goe vv .ini /d jude isnce on record. It is true that Kartheeswaran/7th respondent alienated

the joint family properties for necessity. In the case on hand, in the plaint, filed through his mother it was alleged that the father had driven out the plaintiff and his mother and that he was not taking care of them. When such serious allegations have been made against the plaintiff’s father, any alienation made by the father during the pendency of the suit will not bind the minor son. There is no dispute regarding the character of the suit properties. The plaintiff was entitled to ignore the alienation and maintain a suit for partition. The Courts below have concurrently and correctly found against the appellant. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant.

10. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. It is open to the parties to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the plaintiff’s mother, so advised.

26.08.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No kmm Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To:

1. The District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.

2.The Sub Court, Virudhunagar Copy to:

The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

kmm

26.08.2021