The period of limitation for a minor to recover possession of property sold in a void transaction is 12 years from the date of sale or three years after attaining majority, whichever is longer.

JUDGMENT :- The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for an injunction. The suit property originally belonged to the defendant and his elder brother one Rama Gounder. In their hands it was a joint family property. The elder brother of the defendant died somewhere in the year 1950 when the defendant was a minor. The defendants parents had died earlier than that. Therefore the defendant was brought up by his maternal uncle. The maternal uncle sold the property to the plaintiff on 12-11-1956 as guardian of the defendant who was then minor. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 21-8-1970, as already stated for a declaration and injunction. In the plaint it was stated that at the time when the sale deed was executed on 12-11-1956, the defendant was about 17 years old. But this was denied by the defendant in the written statement and he contended that he was only about 11 years old at the time of the transaction. The main defence of the defendant was that the maternal uncle was not the legal guardian or the de facto guardian and that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was void and inoperative. The defendant also pleaded that the sale was not supported by consideration and it was also not for necessity binding on the minor. Both the courts below have concurrently held that though the sale deed by the maternal uncle was void and in-operative both on the ground that it was not for necessity or for any binding purposes, and also on the ground that the maternal uncle was neither a legal nor a de facto guardian of the minor, the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction as on the date of filing of the suit, he had prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession.

2. In this second appeal, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant contended that since the transaction was held to be void, the period of limitation for prescribing title by adverse possession is 12 years from the date of the defendant attaining the age of majority, that the defendant has stated in the written statement that he was only 11 years in 1956 and he would have attained the age of majority only in 1963, and if 12 years is reckoned from 1963, the plaintiff should prove adverse possession till 1975 in order to get a declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and since the suit itself was filed on 21-9-1970, the plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration of title as prayed for.

3. The defendant was 17 years old at the time of the sale in 1956, and therefore, he is not correct in contending that he was only 11 years old. There is no finding on this question by the Courts below. But in view of the categorical statement in the written statement that he was only 26 years old in 1971, and 11 years of the age in 1956, we shall proceed to consider the question on the basis that the plaintiff was only 11 years old in 1956.

4. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is that during the minority of the appellant, the plaintiff' s possession was not adverse to him and that therefore his right to recover possession would not be lost until after the expiry of a period of 12 years from the date of attaining the age of majority. In this connection, he relies on Art. 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963), which provided a period of 12 years for a suit for possession of immoveable property based on title from the date when the possession of the defendant became adverse to the plaintiff. The proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that in every case where the sale is void as against a minor, the purchaser shall not be deemed to be in adverse possession during the minority cannot be accepted without any limitation. In Seetharamaraju v. Subbaraju, ILR 45 Mad 361 : (AIR 1922 Mad 12), a similar question was considered in a case where a lunatic' s wife who was neither his committee