( 1 ) WHETHER the alienation of immovable property by the de facto guardian of a minor is, always void and whether it is obligatory for the minor to get it quashed by legal process and whether the minor is also obliged to resort to such legal process within the period of three years upon attaining the majority, are the questions forming the theme and heart of this full Bench Reference.

( 2 ) ). During the course of the arguments of this appeal, initially, before the learned single Judge, he thought it expedient to refer the entire Appeal to the Larger Bench for deciding the controversy raised between the parties in view of two contradictory decisions enumerated in the reference order dated 26th August 1993. That is how the Civil Appeal has come up before this Larger bench. Ordinarily, the question of law or formulated points under reference are placed before the Larger Bench. However, since the time-gap long and the also fact that the learned brother Judge, who has made reference, has already retired, we thought it expedient to deal with the controversy pleaded in the reference.

( 3 ) ). Let us, now, at this stage, examine the material spectrum and dimension of fact situation. The Appellants are the original plaintiffs who instituted Regular civil Suit No. 23 of 1976, for the relief of possession, mesne profit, etc. , on the premise that the agricultural property bearing Revenue Survey No. 167/2 admeasuring 1 Acre, 9 Gunthas came to be alienated by the de facto guardian cousin Bhikha Lallu by virtue of Sale Deed, dated 7-5-1953, is a void transaction as it is without any authority. In the alternative, the original plaintiffs sought reliefs of possession on the ground that the Suit land was redeemed from the transferee by paying the amount of Rs. 700. 00 in 1961, and since the date 4-6-1966, the suit. land, was possessed. by all of them. It was also pleaded that thereafter the plaintiffs entered into a mortgage transaction with one Gordhan Lallu of village Ganpatpura for the consideration of Rs1200/ -. In short, the alternative contention has been that the possession of the suit land remained with plaintiffs, and therefore, they are entitled to possession as suit is filed within a period of 12 years.

( 4 ) ). The respondents-original defendants by filing the composite written statement, at Ex. 8, controverted the averments made in the plaint that they contended that the de facto guardian, their father was entrusted the management inter-alia contending that they have full and complete ownership in respect of the land by virtue of Sale Deed dated 7-5-1953 and since then they have been in possession and actual enjoyment of the Suit land having separate agricultural khata No. 188 in the revenue record. They also filed further written statement at Ex. 35 subsequent to the amended plaint. It is, therefore, the contention of the respondents that they are the full and complete owners in respect of the suit land and the suit is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. It is specifically denied that there was transaction of mortgage and not the sale and out-right sale. It has been their contentions that since beginning after the purchase initially their father and thereafter they all brothers are owners and occupants of the suit land. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs even after attaining the age of majority did not file suit for possession within a period of three years.

( 5 ) ). In view of the pleadings of the parties and rival contentions the trial court raised issues, at Ex. 9, and pursuant to the amendment in the plaint and subsequent further written statement issues, also, were modified and additional issues were raised.

( 6 ) ). After considering the evidence of. both the parties, documentary as well as testimonial, the trial Court non-suited the plaintiffs holding (i) that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are the owners of the suit land; (ii) that the plaintiffs have also failed to show an