A minor can effectuate a division in status through a guardian's declaration without necessitating a suit for partition; courts must evaluate if such actions serve the minor's best interests.

1. Roya Kuppa Chetti, the first defendant to the suit out of which this second appeal arises, and Krishnaswami Chetti (the second defendant), his grandson born of his deceased son, were members of a Joint Hindu family. Krishnaswami Chetti, still a minor, is under the care and protection of his mother Sundarammal, who has been impleaded as the 3rd defendant in the suit. Both of them are living in the house, which is the subject matter of this litigation. Roya Kuppa Chetti however did not take to them kindly; it has been found that his attitude towards his grandson was hostile. Being thus obliged by circumstances, the mother of the minor acting on his behalf, issued a notice on 22/12/1953, to his grandfather unequivocally expressing an intention to separate from the family and demanding partition. There was no response to the demand. Instead Roya Kuppa Chetti sold on 01/02/1954 the suit property to the plaintiff purporting to do so on behalf of the joint family consisting of himself and minor Krishnaswami Chetti; the alienation was stated to be for discharging certain liabilities of the family but both the courts below have found that the debts were not genuine.
The alienee relying on the sale deed in his favour instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of possession of the property. Roya Kuppa Chetti filed a written statement supporting the case of the alienee; but he absented himself at trial and was set ex parte. The claim of the alienee was contested on behalf of the other two defendants on two grounds (1) as there was no joint family on the date of alienation in question, the minor having been divided in status from his grandfather by reason of the notice demanding partition, it was not competent for Roya Kuppa Chetti to sell the entire house and (2) even otherwise, the sale was not for any necessity as the debts in discharge of which it was purported to be made were spurious. Both, the courts have held that the notice dated 22/12/1953 issued by the minor's natural guardian was one conceived in his interests and that it validly effected a division in status between the two members of the coparcenary. They also held, overruling an objection on behalf of the alienee, that it was competent to the court in this litigation itself to find whether the notice was one issued for the benefit of the minor.
On the second question the trial court accepted the defendants' case that the alienation, though supported by consideration so far as the alienor was concerned was not for any necessity of the family. The learned Subordinate Judge, though he gave sufficient indication in the judgment that he was of the same view, did not record a definite finding to that effect. On the findings arrived at by the trial court, it was open to that court to have dismissed the suit, which was one in ejectment, leaving the alinee who in the circumstances, obtained only his alienor's interest in the suit property, to file a separate suit for general partition. But that course was not adopted. Instead the court granted a decree for partition on the footing that the sale deed validly conveyed Roya. Kuppa Chetti's half share in the suit property. The decree for partition was not challenged by the contesting defendants. The alienee, on the other hand, filed an appeal against the trial court's decree claiming that the joint family of Roya Kuppa Chetti and his grandson continued and that the sale was one which would bind the interest of the latter. That appeal failed.

2. Aggrieved by the decree in so far as it declined to give him the entire properties the alienee has come forward with this second appeal. The only question argued on his behalf is that it was not competent for the court in this su