S.S. Sundar, J.

1. The defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 137 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the suit properties belongs to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession.

3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff as culled out from the plaint, are as follows:

3.1. The suit properties belonged to the grandfather and grandmother of the plaintiff. The grandparents of the plaintiff had three sons and one daughter. Till 1977, the suit properties were enjoyed in common. By a registered partition, all the family properties were divided among the heirs on 09.06.1979. The plaintiff's father one Nagarajan was allotted the suit properties and other properties. After the partition, the properties were allotted to the individual shares and they are in the enjoyment of the respective sharers.

3.2. The plaintiff was born on 30.05.1982. However, the plaintiff's mother died on 18.04.1984 and the plaintiff's father died on 01.05.1985. Since the plaintiff was a minor then, a petition was filed before the District Court, Srivilliputhur in G.W.O.P. No. 2 of 1993 to appoint a guardian for the person and the properties of the plaintiff/minor. In that proceedings, the plaintiff's paternal uncle, one Kadiresan was appointed as Guardian of minor properties by order dated 22.06.1993. However, without any legal necessity, the plaintiff's paternal uncle Kadireasan executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of all the properties of the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 14.06.1999 and that the properties conveyed under the sale deed were all allotted to the plaintiff's father in the family partition dated 09.06.1979. Though the sale deed was executed by the Guardian appointed by the Court, there was no prior permission from the Court before the sale deed was executed. Hence, the sale deed executed by the Court Guardian is invalid and void. Since the plaintiff was a minor at the time of sale and the plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed dated 14.06.1999, the sale deed will not bind the plaintiff and the sale deed was also liable to be set aside. The sale deed executed by the paternal uncle of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant came to his knowledge only when the plaintiff saw the certified copy of the sale deed on 19.08.2004. Hence, the suit is filed immediately thereafter.

3.3. The suit was contested by the defendant mainly on the ground that the sale deed was executed with the knowledge of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff who is also eo nominee party in the sale deed is bound by the sale deed. It is the specific case of the defendant that the suit without seeking to set aside the alienation, is not maintainable as the sale deed is only voidable. The other averments made in the written statement is not important, having regard to the scope of the second appeal.

3.4. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that it is not proved by the defendant that the sale deed was executed only for the legal necessity of the plaintiff. The trial Court also considered the issue whether the suit is maintainable without the prayer to set aside the alienation.

3.5. The trial Court after finding that the Guardian in this case was appointed by the Court, held that such a person has no right to alienate the property without permission of the Court. Since the alienation itself is illegal. The trial Court further held that the suit for declaration and recovery of possession is maintainable and decreed the suit. One of the issues that was raised by the defendant is that the suit is also barred by limitation. Strangely though the Indian Majority Act, was amended and as per the amendment, a person will be a minor only till he attains the age of 18 years, without taking into consideration the amendment to the Indian Majority Act, 1875 found that the age of majority for the purpose of Guardians and