In joint family property disputes, a guardian may transact on behalf of minors without court sanction, provided sales serve family interests.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

The Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur in A.S. No.4 of 2013 dated 25.08.2014, wherein the appellant herein, being the Plaintiff, has filed a Suit in O.S. No.9 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee for the reliefs of partition and permanent injunction and the said Suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the Plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S. No.4 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur and the First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the Plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

2. The case of the Plaintiff before the trial Court is that the 1^st defendant is the mother of the Plaintiff. The defendants 2 to 4 are brothers of the Plaintiff. The 5^th defendant is the aunt of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the defendants are the legal heirs of one Chandran. The Plaintiff’s grant father owned a property in Survey No.219 and 214 and the same have been sub-divided. Thereafter, the properties were partitioned among the Plaintiff’s father and grand mother and the Plaintiff’s father’s sister. As per the said partition, the ‘A’ schedule property was allotted to the Plaintiff’s grand mother Alamelu Ammal. The ‘B’ schedule property was allotted to the Plaintiff’s father and ‘C’ schedule property was allotted to the Plaintiff’s father’s sister, i.e., the 5^th defendant herein, through a Partition Deed dated 29.06.1989. The Plaintiff’s grand mother Alamelu Ammal died. The Plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased Alamelu Ammal. Therefore, the ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties are available for partition between the Plaintiff and the defendants. The Plaintiff is entitled to 1/10 share in ‘A’ Schedule property and 1/5 share in ‘B’ schedule property. The 1 to 4 defendants are each entitled to 1/10 share and the 5^th respondent is entitled to 5/10 share over the ‘A’ schedule property. The Plaintiff demanded the defendants for partition, but they refused for the same. The Plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had acquired some properties belong to the Plaintiff’s father, grand mother and aunt, the 5^th defendant for public purpose. For which, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had paid a compensation amount of Rs.6,43,663/-. The Plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to ½ share in the compensation amount. The Plaintiff is entitled to 1/5 share from and out of 1/3 share due to the Plaintiff’s father. At the time of apportionment of compensation amount, the Plaintiff was the minor and without permission of the Court, the share of the minor was withdrawn. The 1^st defendant appointed one Thiruveedhi as her Power Agent, without the consent of the Plaintiff. As a Power Agent, the said Thiruveedhi sold the property belongs to the Plaintiff’s father, in which, he has no right to sell. Since the properties are joint family properties, the 1^st defendant has no right to give power to sell the joint family properties. The Plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a Suit for partition and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties.

3. The case of the defendants before the trial Court is that the relationship between the parties are admitted. The grand father of the Plaintiff and the def