CHINNAPPA, J, J. ( 1 ) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that the 1st appellant is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent and appellants 2 to 5 are their children born from their legal wedlock and they constitute a joint family. It is alleged that misunderstanding arose between the appellants on the one side and the respondent No. 1 on the other and that the 1st respondent is residing and messing separately from the appellants. It is also alleged that the properties more fully described in the schedule of the plaint are the ancestral joint family properties standing in the name of the 1st respondent being the eldest male member of the joint family. Nonetheless, the appellants and the respondent No. 1 are in joint possession of the property. According to the appellants, the respondent No. 1 is addicted to vices and was squandering money for his selfsatisfaction, on his liquor, etc. Recently they came to know that the 1st respondent has sold landed property bearing S. No. 56/1b measuring 4 acres 5 guntas of Giriyal Village in favour of R-2 without any consideration when he was under the influence of liquor and possession was delivered to the R-2. The said sale is not binding on the shares of these appellants. It is also further alleged that the respondent No. 1 has not utilized the sale consideration amount for the benefit of the family and other better purposes and there was no legal necessity to alienate the property without the *regular First Appeal No. 331 of 1998 dated 19th March 2003 consent of the appellants. Therefore, they filed the suit for partition claiming 5/6th share in all the properties referred to in the plaint. ( 2 ) THE R-1 has remained exparte and he has not filed any written statement. Only the 2nd respondent who is the purchaser of the property filed a detailed written statement contending interalia that the suit is not properly valued; the boundaries were not properly given; the geneology given also is not correct; the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of R-1; as R-1 was in a financial stringency and for the purpose of cultivating the remaining property and liquidating the hand loans, he voluntarily sold the property on 18. 8. 94 transferring the S. No. 56/1b for a valuable consideration of Rs. 60,000/ -. 8. 94 transferring the S. No. 56/1b for a valuable consideration of Rs. 60,000/ -. It is also specifically denied that R1 was persuaded when he was under the influence of alcohol to execute the sale deed in favour of this respondent. Therefore, the sale deed dated 18. 8. 94. Executed in favour of the 2nd respondent is valid. It is also learnt that on 27. 7. 94 he executed an agreement of sale in favour of Sri Giriyappa Itagi having accepted an amount of Rs. 65,000/- as advance for the purchase of vehicle bearing No. KA-24/1390. Therefore, he submits that the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:1. Whether the first plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant No. 1 and out of the said wedlock plaintiffs 2 to 5 were born to them? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit properties are their joint family ancestral properties and they are in constructive joint possession? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the alleged sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of 1st item of A schedule property is without consideration and the sale deed is not binding on their share? 4. Whether the defendant No. 2 proves that the sale deed in his favour is for valid sale consideration and the same has been executed by defendant No. 1 for legal necessity and also for the benefit of plaintiffs? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/6th share in the suit properties? 6. What order or decree? in support of the case of the appellants, appellant nos. 1 and 3 were examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2 and one Irappa Nagappa Arer was examined as P. W. 3; Exs P-1 to P-10 were marked. Defendant no. 2 was examined as D. W. 1 and other two witnesses were examined as D. Ws 2 and 3; Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked. 1 and 3 were examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2 and one Irappa Nagappa Arer was examined as P. W. 3; Exs P-1 to P-10 were marked. Defendant no. 2 was examined as D. W. 1 and other two witnesses were examined as D. Ws 2 and 3; Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked. After hearing the arugments, the Court below decreed the suit in part holding that only the 4th appellant s/o the 1st respondent is entitled to 1/6th share in S. No. 30/2, 30/4 and 48/16b of Giriyal KB village; it further held that appellant No. 5 is entitled to be maintained until her marriage by the 1st respondent and for consequential reliefs. Being aggrieved by this Judgment passed in O. S. 36/95 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bailhongal dated 4. 2. 98 the plaintiffs preferred this appeal. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. ( 5 ) SRI Thipperudrappa the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court below has committed an error in not holding that the sale deed executed in favour of the 2nd respondent is null and void is so far as the share of the appellants is concerned and also effecting partition in respect of the share of the appellant No. 4 and further he also contended that the other properties also should have been partitioned allotting share to the appellants as claimed in the plaint. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the relief as sought for in the plaint may be granted. ( 6 ) THE 1st question that arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the Lower Court is right in holding that the sale deed Ex. D-1 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent is binding on the family. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 alone had executed the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent and the suit schedule properties and more particularly the property bearing no. 56/1b measuring 4 acres 5 guntas of Giriyal KB village which is the property sold under Ex. D-1 is also a joint family property. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants 1 to 5 have not joined the 1st respondent in executing the sale deed. 56/1b measuring 4 acres 5 guntas of Giriyal KB village which is the property sold under Ex. D-1 is also a joint family property. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants 1 to 5 have not joined the 1st respondent in executing the sale deed. It is also an admitted fact that the 1st respondent was the kartha of the family and he was managing the affairs of the property and maintaining the family, but however, it is specifically pleaded in the plaint that the respondent No. 1 was addicted to drinks and other vices and misunderstanding arose between the 1st respondent on the one side and appellants 1 to 5 on the other and therefore, he was separately messing and living apart, but when P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined before Court, P. W. 1 has specifically admitted that the respondent No. 1 was residing with them even during the pendency of the suit and at the time of executing the sale deed and he was managing the affairs of the family. It is also admitted that he is a good man; there is no allegation that he was addicted to drinks and under the influence of liquor the 2nd respondent got the sale deed executed. These aspects were considered by the Court below to hold that there was no misunderstanding between the family members. P. W. 1 also has admitted that they were in financial difficulties and P. Ws. 1 and 2 also clearly admitted that they purchased a tractor just prior to the suit transaction and the tractor was being used by him. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent no. 1 obviously sold the land for the purpose of purchasing the tractor or to repay the loan. ( 8 ) D. WS. 1 to 4 have stated that the R-1 had borrowed hand loan from D. W. 3 Veerappa Irabasappa Gundlur and the said amount was later paid. D. Ws. 1 and 2 have stated that the respondent 1 had executed the sale deed in favour of R-2 and the consideration was paid by R-2. D. W. 2 Shivappa Irasangappa Chinawalar has given evidence that he had written the sale deed as per the instructions of respondent No. 1 Ex. D-1 is the sale deed and he identified the signatures of himself as well as the respondent 1. D. W. 2 Shivappa Irasangappa Chinawalar has given evidence that he had written the sale deed as per the instructions of respondent No. 1 Ex. D-1 is the sale deed and he identified the signatures of himself as well as the respondent 1. He was crossexamined by the appellants and nothing could be elicited as to why his evidence cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) SIMILARLY, D. W. 3 also has stated that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,000/- during the year 1993. In the crossexamination it is brought out that he was convicted for murder and there is some misunderstanding between himself and the 1st respondent. D. W. 4 is an attestor of the sale deed and his signature is identified as Ex. D-1 (c) and D-1 (a) is the signature of respondent no. 1. Nothing could be elicited from his evidence as to why he was speaking against the appellants. Though it is brought out that there was some misunderstanding between the respondent No. 1 and D. Ws. 3 and 4 nothing is elicited to indicate as to why they should speak in favour of respondent No. 2. In addition to that they have attested the document. Though there is no direct evidence to show that the respondent No. 1 had borrowed the money for discharging his debts, there is evidence to show that he had borrowed the loan for the purpose of purchasing the tractor and also to maintain his family. The Court also has come to the conclusion that it is a collusive suit for the benefit of the appellants. This is apparent on the face of the record in view of the admission of P. W. 1 that her husband respondent No. 1 had accompanied her to the Advocates office to give instructions to file the suit. He had also taken her to the Court when she was examined before Court and he was present when the evidence was recorded. It is also admitted by P. W. 2 who is none other than their daughter and she also had gone to the extent of saying that her jewels were sold to purchase the tractor. That is not the evidence given by P. W. 1. Therefore, considering these aspects, it is clear that respondent no. 1 wanted to get back the property sold under Ex. That is not the evidence given by P. W. 1. Therefore, considering these aspects, it is clear that respondent no. 1 wanted to get back the property sold under Ex. D-1 for themselves and instigated appellants 1 to 5 to file the suit. He is the brain behind the suit to make unholy profit for himself. Therefore, the Court below has held that the sale deed is binding on the appellants. As it was sold for legal necessity of the family and the amount was utilized for the purpose of improving their property. Therefore, that finding of the Court below that the property sold under Ex. D-1 is not tainted with any illegality and therefore, binding on the appellants does not call for interference. ( 10 ) THE next question that arises is as to whether the Court below has committed any error in decreeing the suit only in favour of appellate No. 4 who is the son of the 1st appellant and R-1 and brother of other appellants. ( 11 ) IT is not in dispute that Appellants 2 and 3 were married before the suit came to be filed. Appellant No. 4 was minor at that time aged about 10 years and appellate No. 5 is still a minor daughter then aged about 6 years. These two appellants are represented by next friend and natural guardian mother appellant No. 1. Therefore the Court has held that the appellants 2 and 3 were married before the Section 6 (A) of the Hindu Succession Act came into force and they were not entitled to seek partition for share in the property. The 1st appellant is the wife and as started above, they are still living together in one mess and there is no difference of opinion amongst them. During the life time of the husband, the 1st appellant is not entitled for share as she would be entitled for a share in the event of partition after the death of her husband, which would be the share of her husband. Therefore, the Court has rightly held that she is not entitled for any share in the property during the life time of R-1. ( 12 ) THE 5th appellant is a minor girl aged about 6 years who is under the care and custody of the appellant and respondent No. 1. She cannot also independently ask for partition. Therefore, the Court has rightly held that she is not entitled for any share in the property during the life time of R-1. ( 12 ) THE 5th appellant is a minor girl aged about 6 years who is under the care and custody of the appellant and respondent No. 1. She cannot also independently ask for partition. Therefore, the court has held that she is entitled to be maintained by the appellant and respondent No. 1 and her claim also was rightly rejected. Only the share of the 4th appellant was granted by the Court holding that he is entitled for 1/6th share, in S. No. 30/2, 30/4 and 48/16b of Giriyal KB Village. ( 13 ) AT this stage it is necessary to mention that the appellant no. 4 is still a minor and absolutely there is no severence in the family. The respondent is very much in the family and he is looking after the property as admitted by the P. W. 1 in her cross-examination. By allotting a share to the 4th appellant I am of the view that virtually a family will be severed. The learned Court also considered the commentary by Waynes Hindu Law and Usage 14th Edition, under the Chapter Partition on page 806 and extensively quoted the same. ( 14 ) IN this case the allegations made by the appellants are only to challenge the alienation made by the 1st respondent. As admitted by the witnesses, they are still living together. It is settled law that share to a minor can be given only if any one of the following conditions are satisfied: (i) where the interest of the minor is likely to be prejudiced by the property being left in the hands of the other coparceners; (ii) where the property is not being properly managed; (iii) where the minors rights are denied; or (iv) where the manager declines to provide for the minors maintenance. ( 15 ) FROM the evidence adduced by the appellant it is abundantly clear that none of these requirements are satisfied. On the other hand, the object of filing this suit is to set aside the sale deed executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent. ( 15 ) FROM the evidence adduced by the appellant it is abundantly clear that none of these requirements are satisfied. On the other hand, the object of filing this suit is to set aside the sale deed executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent. As stated above, the appellants failed to establish that the respondent No. 1 executed the sale when he was under the influence of liquor; on the other hand, the evidence discloses that the alienation was for the benefit of the family and also to improve other properties of the parties. The allegations made in the plaint in regard to claiming partition of the property are totally vague and interest of minor is involved. When partition of coparcenary property is sought for on behalf of minors, the allegations should satisfy anyone of the conditions mentioned supra and the same have to be established by cogent and convincing evidence. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent No. 1 sold the property and these appellants apprehended that he may sell the other properties also. Therefore, the Court was right in decreeing the suit for partition of the properties. ( 17 ) IF it is only an apprehension of the fact that the respondent no. 1 would sell the property, they could have sought for necessary reliefs of injunction. In this case, the 5th appellant also is a minor. There is no cogent and convincing evidence to show as to when the marriages of 2nd and 3rd appellants were celebrated. The 2nd appellant was not examined. 3rd appellant who is examined as p. W. 2 has categorically stated that she had married. The dates of their marriages are not known. Birth certificates are produced. According to the certificates during 1995 the 2nd appellant was aged about 27 years. The 3rd appellant was 18 years old. When 3rd appellant was examined in the Court in 1997 she has stated at one breath that she was married earlier and then she also married for the second time. That is also not clarified. According to Section 6-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in Karnataka state, married daughters would not be entitled for a share in the property if their marriage was solomnised prior to the Act coming into force. That is also not clarified. According to Section 6-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in Karnataka state, married daughters would not be entitled for a share in the property if their marriage was solomnised prior to the Act coming into force. Appellants have not established the date of marriage of appellants 2 and 3 to hold as to whether they are not entitled for share in the property. ( 18 ) THE 1st appellant is none other than the wife of the 1st respondent. Their marriage is still subsisting and she herself has categorically admitted that the 1st respondent is living with them, he is a good man, he is managing the affairs of the family and he is cultivating the property. It is also admitted that just prior to selling the property under Ex. D-1 he had purchased a tractor and that is also for the benefit of the family and prior to filing of the suit, not even a notice was issued to the 1st respondent, to effect partition. Therefore, the intendment of the appellant is apparently clear that they did not require partition but they wanted a decree of setting aside the sale deed Ex. D-1. Therefore, the decree passed by the court allotting 1/6th share to the 4th appellant is incorrect, so also decreeing the suit in favour of the appellant No. 4 only on the ground that the 1st respondent might alienate the property also cannot be accepted. At best the Court could have passed an order moulding the relief directing the 1st respondent not to alienate the property without the consent and concurrence of the appellant and if necessary after obtaining permission of the Court to safeguard the interest of minor appellant which is the paramount consideration of the case. Under the extraodinary circumstances, I hold that the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. ( 19 ) IN the result therefore, I proceed to pass the following: order the appeal stands disposed of dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants. However, liberty is reserved to the appellants to file a properly constituted suit for partition, if so advised, notwithstanding the fact that the suit on hand is dismissed on technical grounds as explained above. Taking into consideration the relationship of the parties and the relief sought for in the suit. However, liberty is reserved to the appellants to file a properly constituted suit for partition, if so advised, notwithstanding the fact that the suit on hand is dismissed on technical grounds as explained above. Taking into consideration the relationship of the parties and the relief sought for in the suit. I hold that both the parties shall pay and bear their own costs. --- *** --- .