G. Jayachandran, J.

The legal heirs of the plaintiff is the appellants before this Court. Suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction was allowed by the trial Court and the same was reversed by the first appellate Court, resulting in dismissal of the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate Court, the present Second Appeal is preferred. Pending appeal, the plaintiff/1st appellant died. Therefore, her legal heirs were brought on record.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their rank and status shown the original suit.

3. The brief facts leading to the second appeal are as under:- The suit property is situated at Survey No.200/5 measuring to an extent of 42 cents at Vilangalpattu village, Cuddalore Taluk. It is admitted by both the parties that one Kuppusamy Padaiyachi was the owner of the property. He, on 21.03.1964, settled the property in favour of his minor son Veerappan appointing his wife Vedavalli Ammal as his guardian. On 16.05.1968, Vedavalli Ammal sold the minor's property on behalf the minor to one Narayanasamy, who is the father of the plaintiff.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that by virtue of the sale dated 16.05.1968, the suit property was transferred in the name of Narayanasamy and from that day onwards, he had been enjoying the property absolutely without any hindrance. On 19.11.1973, Narayanasamy executed the Will in favour of the plaintiff in a good state of mental disposition. Thereafter, in the year 1983, Narayanasamy died. After his death, the plaintiff is in enjoyment of the property continuously. While so, the defendants, by force tried to trespass into the suit property. Hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction sought against the defendants.

5. The first defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 and 3 contesting the suit on the ground that the settlement deed dated 14.05.1968 in favour of his minor son Veerappan is true. But, Vedavalli Ammal appointed as defacto guardian is not legally correct and as a consequence, the alleged sale deed executed by Vedavalli Ammal as defacto guardian of minor Veerappan is void. Therefore, Narayanasamy, who is the father of the plaintiff, has no right over the suit property. As a consequence, the Will executed by Narayanasamy has no force in law and the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the suit property through the Will executed by Narayanasamy, who himself had no valid title over the property.

6. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidences let in by the respective parties, has held that based on the settlement deed-Ex.A1 dated 21.03.1964, Vedavalli Ammal has sold the property to Narayanasamy on 14.05.1968 through Ex.A2. Since Vedavalli Ammal has sold the minor's property, it is a voidable document and steps should have been taken to declare it as a voidable document within the period of limitation, which the minor has not resorted to. Any right available with the minor has got extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act. Further, the trial Court, considering the admission of the first defendant regarding the enjoyment of the suit property by Narayanasamy, held that Exs.B1 and B2-sale deeds executed by Veerappan in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 on 24.10.1990 are non est in law, since Veerappan, who born on 10.12.1950, as per Ex.A7, on attaining majority, has not taken any steps to declare Ex.A2 as a voidable document and without resorting to that procedure, he has sold the property to the defendants vide Exs.B1 and B2 in the year 1990. The execution of the sale deed by the mother on behalf of the minor, never questioned within 3 years, after attaining majority (or) within 12 years from the sale. Therefore, the trial Court accepted the plea of the plaintiff and granted decree of declaration and injunction.

7. Aggrieved by that, the plaintiff preferred appeal and the first appellate Court, after re-appreciating of evidences has held that Vedavalli Ammal ca