Judgment :- (Prayer: This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.10.1989 in O.S.No.153 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayiladuthurai.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.153 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai, have preferred this Appeal. 2. The short facts of the plaintiffs' case sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: i) The first plaintiff Anjammal is admittedly the wife of the first Defendant. The plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the children of the said couple. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition of 4/5 share in the suit property and also for past and future maintenance from the first Defendant by creating a charge in A schedule property and also the plaintiffs have asked for Rs.10,000/- from the first Defendant to meet the marriage expenses of minor fourth plaintiff-Vasuki. The plaintiffs have filed the suit informa pauperise. ii) According to the plaintiffs the plaint schedule property belongs to the joint family of plaintiffs 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and the first defendant. The marriage of the fourth plaintiff-Vasuki was conducted with the help of the first plaintiff's brother Sundaramoorthy, who is residing at America. The welfare of the plaintiffs are being looked after only by the brother of the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs 1 and 4 have asked for monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- from the first Defendant and plaintiffs 2,3,5 to 7 have claimed partition of 4/5 share in the suit property and also claimed Rs.10,000/- to meet the marriage expenses of the minor fourth plaintiff. 3. The first defendant in his written statement has contended that out of the income derived from sheep trade, he had purchased the 11th item in A schedule property on 10.6.1968. So, 11th item in A schedule property is a self acquired property of the first defendant. The plaintiffs and first Defendant are living under the same roof. The allegation in the plaint that the first Defendant and the plaintiffs are living separately is not true. The first Defendant has not spent any amount towards illegal or immoral purpose. The first plaintiff and the fourth plaintiff are not entitled to claim separate maintenance. The amount of maintenance claimed by the first and fourth plaintiff is exorbitant. The allegation in the plaint that the first Defendant and the plaintiffs are living separately is not true. The first Defendant has not spent any amount towards illegal or immoral purpose. The first plaintiff and the fourth plaintiff are not entitled to claim separate maintenance. The amount of maintenance claimed by the first and fourth plaintiff is exorbitant. The first Defendant had borrowed Rs.4,000/- from Subramanian, Marimuthu and one Bellar and also borrowed Rs.2,000/- from Canara Bank for the purpose of cultivating the land. The first Defendant had executed a sale deed in respect of 11th item of A schedule property in favour of the second Defendant for valuable consideration. From out of the sale price the first Defendant had discharged the loan indicated above. The suit is not maintainable. 11th item in 'A' schedule property is not available for partition. 4. The second Defendant in his written statement has contended that he is a bone fide purchaser for value of 11th item of A schedule property. The plaintiffs and the first Defendant are living jointly under one roof. To meet the family expenses, the first Defendant had executed a sale deed in favour of the second Defendant in respect of item 11 of A schedule property. From out of the sale price, the first Defendant had discharged the loan, which he had obtained from Subramanian, Marimuthu and Bellar and also discharged the loan due to the Canara Bank. The second Defendant is a bone fide purchaser for value of the 11th Item of the A schedule property. The 11th item of A schedule property exclusively belongs to the second Defendant. The plaintiffs have no right to ask for any partition of 11th item of A schedule property. As the Kartha of the Hindu joint family the first Defendant is entitled to execute sale deed in respect of 11th item of the suit property. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings the learned trial judge had framed four issues and on the basis of the documentary and oral evidences has come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs 2, 3, 5 to 7 are entitled to 5/6 share in the plaint schedule property except item 11 in A schedule property and accordingly passed a preliminary Decree for partition and has dismissed the suit in respect of other reliefs. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial judge, the plaintiffs have preferred this Appeal. 6. Now, the point for determination in the Appeal are as follows: i) Whether the first and fourth plaintiffs are entitled to maintenance as claimed by them? ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a share in 11th item of A schedule property? 7. Point (i):- The first plaintiff and minor fourth plaintiff-Vasuki have claimed maintenance of Rs.500/- per month from the first Defendant. The learned trial judge has rejected their claim on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that the plaintiffs are living separately from the first Defendant. Basing the evidence of the second Defendant, who was examined as D.W.1, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that both the plaintiffs and first Defendant are living under the same roof, but an independent witness viz. Anjan, who was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the plaintiffs, was not at all taken into consideration by the trial Court. The fact that P.W.2 was working under the first Defendant as a labourer will not lead to discord his evidence in to-to. There is no motive suggested against P.W.2 to depose falsehood against the first Defendant. P.W.2 has categorically deposed in his evidence that both the plaintiffs and the first Defendant are living separately even few years before filing of the suit. Except plaintiffs 1 and 4 no one else to claim any amount towards maintenance. It is in evidence that the fourth Defendant has also got married. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the first Defendant is liable to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the first plaintiff. The first point is answered accordingly. 8. Point (ii):- The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the 11th item in A schedule property is a joint family property and hence, the sale deed-Ex.A.2 executed by the first Defendant in favour of the second Defendant is to be held invalid. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot hold good because it is in evidence that only to discharge the loan borrowed from Canara Bank and also to discharge the hand loan obtained from Subramanian, Marimuthu and Bellar, the first Defendant had executed Ex.A.2-sale deed in favour of the second Defendant. The plaintiffs 3 to 7 are minors. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot hold good because it is in evidence that only to discharge the loan borrowed from Canara Bank and also to discharge the hand loan obtained from Subramanian, Marimuthu and Bellar, the first Defendant had executed Ex.A.2-sale deed in favour of the second Defendant. The plaintiffs 3 to 7 are minors. The sale deed has been executed in the year 1982. The suit was filed in the year 1988 (pauper suit). Under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the minors can file a suit to set aside the sale within three years from the date they attained majority. So far, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to set aside the sale deed-Ex.A.2. 9. Per contra, D.W.1 has deposed before the trial Court that he is a bone fide purchaser for value and out of the sale proceeds, the first Defendant had discharged the debt borrowed from the Canara Bank and also from Subramanian, Marimuthu and Bellar and the said loan amount was raised by the first Defendant only to meet the family expenses and also to meet the educational expenses of the minor children. The plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence to show that Ex.A.2-sale deed was executed to meet the expenses incurred by the first Defendant, illegal or immoral purpose. There is no Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs in respect of the findings regarding the partition. The second point is answered accordingly. 10. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed and the first plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance of Rs.500/- per month from the first Defendant from the date of filing of the suit. The Appeal is dismissed as against the second Defendant. As far as the court fee is concerned, the plaintiffs are liable to pay for the disallowed portion and the first Defendant is liable to pay for the allowed portion in this Appeal.