1. The appellant, who is the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.4162 of 1984, on the file of VII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the defendants 1 to 7 praying for the relief of partition and also directing the defendants to render proper account for the rental income in respect of suit property viz., house and premises bearing No.24 Narayana Naicken Street, Pudupet, Chennai - 2. Both parties have contested the suit. On hearing both sides, the trial judge dismissed the suit. Against which, he preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 471 of 2004, wherein the appellate judge on analysing the facts and evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the findings of trial court. Now, challenging the concurrent findings, he preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case is as follows : -
The plaintiff is the son of 1st defendant and younger brother of 2nd defendant. The case of plaintiff is that the suit house is a joint family property allotted to the share of his father Anand Shah as per the partition deed dated 09.03.1951 between himself and his family members. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Anand Shah, each entitled to their equal share in that property. During the life time, the plaintiff's father Anand Shah sold the joint family property to one Lakshmana Shah, husband of 4th defendant and father of 3rd defendant through sale deed dated 16.02.1960 on behalf of him. As a natural guardian of plaintiff and 2nd defendant, who were then minors without obtaining permission of the court as such executed the sale deed dated 16.02.1960 is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff and 2nd defendant. The plaintiff came to know recently, legal heirs of purchaser Lakshmana Shah, viz., defendants 3 and 4 attempted to sell the property to third party. Therefore, he issued notice calling upon the defendants 3 and 4 not to alienate and also asked for rental income, since they collected the rent from the tenants, who are defendants 5, 6 and 7 and they were also directed to render true and proper accounts to the plaintiff. Pending suit, 1 defendant died. Therefore, the plaintiff and 2nd defendant equally entitled to half share in the suit property and prayed to decree the suit accordingly.

4. The defendants 1 and 4 died. The defendants 2, 5 and 6 remained absent and they were set ex parte. The 3rd and 7th defendants contested the suit. As per the written statement of 3rd defendant, the plaintiff is aged about 26 years on the date of filing suit and he has not filed the suit within 3 years after attaining majority in respect of suit property, which was sold long back in the year 1960 as such the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation. After lapse of 24 years, the plaintiff come forward with the suit for partition without asking any relief of declaration, besides the suit property was sold by the plaintiff's father for a valid consideration and the same was utilised to discharge the mortgage debt of the family and the same was bound by the family, indeed, father of plaintiff was managing affairs as kartha of the family, thereby the plaintiff is bound by the act of father, the property was also sold to discharge the loan and for the welfare of the family, there was legal necessity not required to obtain permission to sell the property of minor share. After the purchase, the defendants 3 and 4 entitled to collect the rent and the same cannot be questioned by the plaintiff. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. The tenant / 7th defendant submitted the written statement stating that he paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- as rental advance and also paying electricity charges and at his cost, he repaired the portion of building, thereby he is entitled for reimbursement of the said sum.

6. Considering both side submissions, the trial judge had framed the following issues: -
(i) Whether the suit without setting aside