Release deed executed without including plaintiff as a party.

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 09.03.1994, made in A.S.No.214 of 1993, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, dated 08.01.1993, made in O.S.No.295 of 1989.

2. The first defendant before the trial Court is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.295 of 1989, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, praying for the passing of a preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule properties, by dividing the same into four equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and to put him in separate possession of the same and for the cost of the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff in the suit, are as follows:

The plaintiff is the minor son of the second defendant. The defendants are brothers. The properties described in the suit schedule are ancestral properties belonging to the joint family. The plaintiff is entitled to ¼ th share in the suit schedule properties. The second defendant had married the plaintiffs mother and they had two daughters, both of whom are elder to the plaintiff. The second defendant had deserted the plaintiff, his mother and sisters. Therefore, they were living at Naduppalayam with the plaintiffs maternal grand father. It had been further stated that the second defendant had executed two release deeds in favour of the first defendant, acting against the interest of the plaintiff. The release deeds are not for the benefit of the plaintiff, as he has not been made a nominee to the release deeds. The consideration mentioned in the documents are also not true, or correct. The second defendant is not entitled to release the properties, including the plaintiffs share. Since the release deeds, dated 112. 1988 and 112. 1988, are not genuine documents, they will not in any way bind the plaintiff and curtail his rights over the suit schedule properties. Even though the first item of the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of the plaintiffs paternal grand mother, since it was purchased from and out of the income from the ancestral joint family properties, the plaintiff is entitled to ¼ th share in both the items of the suit schedule properties. A legal notice had been issued on behalf of the plaintiff and the first defendant had issued a reply stating that the plaintiff is living along with the second defendant and the release deeds were made only for the benefit of the family. The statements made in the reply notice are false and devoid of merits. Hence the plaintiff had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his ¼ th share.

4. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the first respondent are as follows:

The first respondent does not admit any of the allegations contained in the plaint, except those which were specifically admitted. The statements made by the plaintiff are deliberate, falsehood, mischievous and misleading. The claim of the plaintiff that the first item of the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of the plaintiffs paternal grandmother, from and out of the income of the ancestral joint family properties is false. It had also been stated that the plaintiff, his mother, the second defendant and the plaintiffs sisters are all living together happily and peacefully at Thalingikkadu Thottam, Pappampatti Village, Palladam Taluk. They are not residing at Naduppalayam with the maternal grand father as stated in the plaint. There was no misunderstanding amongst them and it is not true to state that the second defendant had deserted the plaintiff, his mother and the sisters. It is only for the purpose of filing the present suit, the plaintiff had made such allegations with ulterior motives. The first item of the suit schedule property has not been purchased from and out of the income of