The main legal point established in the judgment is that a sale deed executed by a person who is neither a natural guardian nor a defacto guardian on behalf of a minor is void, and the minor is not required to file a suit to set aside the sale within the limitation period.

1. The Legal heirs of the sole plaintiff are the appellants herein. The suit for partition in respect of suit schedule properties was allowed by the trial Court, but reversed in the appeal.

2. The suit schedule consists of three items. In respect of the 2nd item of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff claim was that he purchased undivided 1/2 share from one Chenniappan on 31.10.1953 and the remaining 1/2 share was jointly purchased by him and his brothers Nachiappa Gounder and Marappan gounder from Rasayammal on 25.10.1965. Thus, he is entitled for 4/6 share in the 2nd item property. In so far as 1st and 3rd items of properties, his father Marappa Gounder purchased it and after his death intestate, it devolved upon him and his two brothers. Thus, he is entitled for 1/3 share in those two items of property. This was contested by his brothers and brothers' legal heirs. According to them, Rasayammal sold the entire extent of 14.06 acres of land mentioned as 2nd item of the suit schedule property to them on 10.06.1953 on her behalf and on behalf of Chenniappan, who was minor at that point of time. Therefore, the later sale deed purported to be executed by Chenniappan on 31.10.1953 and by Rasayammal on 10.06.1965 is invalid.

3. In respect of 1st item of the property, there was an oral partition between the brothers and in the said partition, this property was alloted to Nachiappa Gounder, the first defendant. Since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the 1st item of property. This property has been re-surveyed and new survey number was assigned and patta is in his name. The suit properties were never in joint possession.

4. In respect of 3rd item of the property, it was included later by way of amendment, after a plea of partial partition raised by the defendants in their additional written statement, in which, it was averred that, the 3rd item of the property situated in re-survey No. 46, old S.F. No 248/A in Veerasangali village was purchased by his father Marappa Gounder on 25.10.1937. He purchased undivided 2.31-1/2 acres in 6.04 acres. During the partition among the sons of Marappa Gounder, major portion was allotted to the plaintiff and other deceased brother Marappan. (his Legal representatives are defendants 5 to 8 and they remind ex-parte in the suit). Only a small portion was given to first defendant. The non inclusion of this property renders the suit for partition not maintainable.

5. The trial Court allowed the suit holding that the sale deed Ex.B-2, dated 10.06.1953 executed by Rasayammal on her behalf and on behalf of minor Chenniappan in respect of 2nd item is void. The oral partition pleaded by the defendants in respect of items 1 and 3 of the properties is not proved.

6. On appeal, the lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on the ground that, patta issued in favour of the defendants based on the re-survey proceedings proves the oral partition. The minor Chenniappan, after attaining majority, ought to have challenged the validity of Ex.B-2, within a period of limitation prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Without filing a suit to set aside the sale effected by the defacto guardian, within three years from attaining majority, he has sold the property to the plaintiff. PW-2 had no title to convey under Ex.A-3 to the plaintiff. Therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

7. This Court, while admitting the second appeal, has formulated the following Substantial Question of Law for consideration:-

“(1) Is the lower appellate Court justified in holding that even when an alienation is made by minor's property by a person who is neither a natural guardian or a defacto guardian, the minor on attaining majority within 3 years must file a suit to set aside the sale?

(2) Is the lower appellate Court justified in holding that the oral partition pleaded by the defendants is acceptable, without any discussion on the same?”

8. The learned counsel for appellants su