Alienation of minors property – Suit for setting aside sale – Limitation prescribed is three years from date on which minor attained majority: Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, sec. 8(3):

The suit property belonged to one Perachan as per kanam assignment deed No.2636 of 1927. On the death of Perachan, the lease hold right devolved on his sons, Lakshmanan and Raghavan. The said Raghavan died a bachelor. Thus, the entire property belonged to Lakshmanan. On the death of Lakshmanan, plaintiffs and other legal heirs acquired right over the property. Plaintiffs claimed that they have 2/6th shares in the suit property. While so, their sister, Syamala assigned her 1/6th share to Prabhakaran Nair and Sathiyamma. That was followed by the mother of appellants/plaintiffs and 6th defendant executing release deed in favour of Prabhakaran Nair. Appellants/plaintiffs say that at the time release deed was executed, themselves and 6th defendant were minors and that apart, 1st appellant/1st plaintiff was insane. But, it is without getting permission of the court that the mother had executed release deed and hence, it is not valid or binding on plaintiffs and 6th defendant. Defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court accepted the plea of the Defendant and dismissed the suit.

On appeal, the court held that an alienation of immovable property by the natural guardian without obtaining permission of the Court was only voidable (and not void) and that there should be a prayer to set aside such alienation.

It is not disputed that Meenakshy, mother of appellants 2nd and 3rd was their natural guardian. Hence, assuming that she has alienated the share of appellants 2 and 3/2nd plaintiff and 6th defendant without getting permission of the court, the release deed to the extent it concerned appellants 2 and 3 is only voidable and not void and hence, appellants 2 and 3 were bound to get release deed to the extent it concerned them set aside, for which the period of limitation prescribed is three years from the date on which appellants 2 and 3 attained majority. Admittedly, the suit was filed much beyond the said period of three years in which case Defendant 1 to 5 are justified in their contention that the suit to the extent it concerned appellants 2 and 3 is barred by limitation. The view taken by the first appellate court concerning appellants 2 and 3 was held to be correct.