Sankarasubban, J.

This appeal has been referred by a Division Bench with regard to the interpretation of Sec. 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Relevant portions of Sec. 8 of the Act are as follows:

“8. Powers of natural guardian: (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor’s estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.

(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court.-

(a) Mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor;

or

(b) Lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority.

(3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, a contravention of sub-sec (1) or sub-sec (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him.”

2. Question raised is whether alienation of immovable property by natural guardian without obtaining permission of the court if void or voidable. The appeal arises from O.S.No.493 of 1988 of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. The suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and give possession of one share to the plaintiff with mesne profits. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property belonged to her father Cherodath Achutha Menon. After his death, the property devolved on the plaintiff as well as her mother. At that time, the plaintiff was a minor. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property was sold by sale deed No. 1704/79 at the time when the plaintiff was a minor. The sale deed was executed by the plaintiff’s mother in favour of the defendant, who is none other than the brother of the mother. The plaintiff states that the sale of the property was without getting the consent of the court and without any legal necessity.

3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the contention of the plaintiff and contended that the sale deed is valid. The court below raised relevant issues. The two issues relevant for our purpose are issue Nos. 1 and 5. The first issue is “Is not the sale deed No. 1704 of 1979 void as regards the plaintiff’s share in the plaint schedule property is concerned for want of courts section under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act? and the other issue, “Is the suit barred by limitation?”

4. Question that has to be considered is whether the plaintiff should have challenged the sale deed. The plaint shows that the prayer is only made for partition without a prayer for setting aside the sale deed. The court below held that it is not necessary to challenge the sale deed, since the sale is void. To arrive at this conclusion, the court below relied on the decision in Sathoshkumar v. Varghese 1987 (2) K.L.T. 27 and other decisions of this Court. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it took the view that since it was not necessary to challenge the sale deed, Article 60A of the Limitation Act is not applicable and hence, the suit is not barred by limitation. The suit was decreed. It is against the above judgment and decree that the defendant has come in appeal.

5. The learned Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench as an important question regarding the interpretation of Sec,8(3) of the Act was involved. When the matter came up before the Division Bench, of which one of us (Sankarasubban, J.) was a member, it was found that there was divergence of opinion. Thus, the issue was referred to the Full Bench. Accordingly, the matter has come before this Bench.

6. Sec.8(3) of the Act was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kunhiraman v. Vanaja – 1997 (2) K.L.T. 5.