The central legal point established in the judgment is that the mother can act as a natural guardian and execute transactions related to the minor's interest in joint family property. Such transactions are voidable and can be avoided within three years from the date when the minors attain majority.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.1250 of 1982 and the defendant in O.S.No.119 of 1983 has filed these Second Appeals aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the courts below.

2. The appellant filed O.S.No.1250 of 1982 for declaration that he is entitled to the entire suit properties and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession in the suit properties or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the same.

3. According to the appellant, the suit properties originally belonged to one Vadivel. After his death, his wife Kuzhanthaiammal along with children inherited the properties. She sold the said properties on her behalf and on behalf of the minors under Ex.A2 in favour of the plaintiff on 15.5.1972. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.1250 of 1982 also filed another suit in O.S.No.1 19 of 1983 for declaration and for possession or in the alternative for partition of his 5?6th share in the suit properties. He admitted that the suit properties belonged to Vadivel. He has contended that Kuzhanthaiammal is not the wife of Vadivel, but one Govindammal is the wife of Vadivel. The said Govindammal eloped with another person and thereafter he was living with Kuzhanthaiammal. The properties of Vadivel were inherited by Govindammal and the two children, namely, Thanikachalam and Santhi. After they attained majority, they executed Ex.B3 dated 24.8.82 selling the suit properties to the 1st defendant/Rajagopal and so the appellant is not having any right in the suit properties except for 1? 6th share.

4. The trial court accepting the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1 19 of 1983 decreed the suit for partition of 5?6th share and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.1250 of 1982. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Appeals in A.S.No.86 of 1990 and 4 of 1991 on the file of the Sub-Court,Cuddalore. Even the lower appellate court confirmed the said judgment and decrees of the trial court. Hence these appeals.

5. The substantial question of law that was framed in these Second Appeals are:- "Whether the claim of the respondents are barred by limitation"?

6. On the basis of the arguments raised by both the counsel, I am reframing the substantial question of law as follows:-

(1) Whether Kuzhanthaiammal is having any legal right to convey the interest of the minors in the joint family property as their guardian?

(2) Whether such a sale deed without obtaining permission from the Court under Sec.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956is sustainable in law?

(3) Whether a suit to avoid such sale has to be filed within three years as contemplated under Article 60 of the Limitation Act or can be within 12 years as contemplated under Article 65 of the Limitation Act?

7. The courts below held that the sale deed executed by Kuzhanthaiammal on behalf of the minor children in favour of the appellant under Ex.A2, dated 15.5.1972 cannot be sustained as no permission from the court was obtained, as contemplated under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, hereinafter called 'the Act 1956', and so the plaintiff in O.S.No.1250 of 1982 (appellant herein) cannot claim any right in the share of the minors, as the 1st respondent has filed the suit, namely, O.S.No.119 of 1983 to avoid the sale within 12 years, as contemplated under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

8. Mr. Maninarayanan, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is not in dispute that the suit properties are the joint family properties and the mother executed Ex.A2 sale deed on her behalf and as natural guardian on behalf of the minor children in favour of the appellant. Even if no permission was obtained from the court as contemplated under Sec.8 of the Act, 1956 to sell the interest in the share of the immovable properties of the minors, it is only voidable and the said sale could be avoided within three years from the date when the minors attained majority as contemplated under Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act. He also