The transaction in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956 is voidable at the instance of the minor, not void. The minor must file a suit within the prescribed period to avoid the transaction under Article 60 of the Limitation Act.

( 1 ) THE issue which arises for determination in these appeals is whether a sale entered into by the natural guardian of a minor without obtaining the prior permission of the court under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") was void or voidable. Depending upon the answer to this issue, a further question needs resolution, namely, if it is voidable at the instance of the minor, what is the period of limitation within which the minor must file a suit impugning the sale?

( 2 ) THE property in question was originally owned by one Karthiayani (referred to as k hereunder ). K was allotted the property under a deed of partition of joint family properties, which included the property in dispute. In 1958, K mortgaged the property to one Nangali Amma (referred to as n ). In 1959, K died leaving behind her, her husband, Raghavan Nair, and her son and daughter, namely, Gopalakrishnan and Chandramati, respectively. Her children were minors at the time of Ks death. One year after Ks death Raghavan as natural guardian of the two children, sold the equity of redemption in respect to the suit property, to Ns daughter, Bhavani.

( 3 ) THESE facts are not in dispute. In 1979, the children of K, namely, Gopalakrishnan and Chandramati (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff-respondents") filed a suit claiming to redeem the property which had been mortgaged by their mother, K to N. N raised the defence that the equity of redemption having already been sold to APs daughter, namely, Bhavani (the appellant before us), the suit was not maintainable. The appellant was then added as Defendant 2 to the suit. The trial court framed several issues of which three relevant issues for the purposes of these appeals may be noted. The first was whether the sale dated 3-10-1960 was valid or whether it was liable to be set aside; the second, whether the suit was barred by limitation; and the third, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the suit property.

( 4 ) THE trial court held that the sale was invalid on the ground that the prior permission of the court had not been obtained by Raghavan under Section 8 (2) of the Act, 1956. It also held that the period of limitation for redemption of a mortgage was 30 years as prescribed under Article 61 (a) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the suit had been filed within 30 years of the plaintiff-respondents attaining majority, the suit was not barred by limitation. The plaintiffs were, therefore, held entitled to redeem the mortgaged property and a preliminary decree was passed to that effect.

( 5 ) THE first appellate court, however, came to the conclusion that the sale of the equity of redemption by Raghavan as natural guardian of the plaintiff-respondents was voidable under Section 8 (3) of the Act. The period of limitation for setting aside the sale was three years as prescribed under Section 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was found, as a fact, that the first plaintiff-respondent had approached the court much beyond the period of three years and therefore, the first plaintiff-respondents claim was time-barred but as regards the second plaintiff-respondent the first appellate court found that the suit was filed well within the period of limitation. Therefore, the claim of the second plaintiff-respondent was limited to her share in the property. The preliminary decree was accordingly modified.

( 6 ) THE appellant and the plaintiff-respondents filed second appeals before the High Court. The matter was disposed of by the Division Bench by setting aside the decision of the first appellate court on the ground that the sale having been made by Raghavan admittedly without obtaining the prior permission of the court under Section 8 (2) of the Act, was void. "the sale being void, the same could be ignored and the plaintiff-respondents did not have to seek to set it aside. " It was also held that the right to redeem the property continued and that "admittedly the suit