A minor can avoid a voidable transfer of property by their guardian by unilateral conduct, such as transferring the property to another person, without the need to file a suit to set aside the transfer.

D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decision of the lower appellate court dismissing the suit on reversing that of the trial court.

( 2 ) THE appellant filed Title Suit No. 8 of 1974 in the court of the Munsif, Patnagarh against the respondents for declaration of title over the suit land, for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants in the alternative for recovery of the sum of Rs. 500/-, the consideration money under the sale deed in question. The respondents 1 to 8 were impleaded as defendants in the suit. The plaintiff's case in brief was that the suit land belonged to defendants 2, 3 and 4 who got it by gift from their mother, defendant 5. Defendant 1 father of defendants 2 to 4 as the guardian of his minor sons sold the suit property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dt. /- 27-12-66 (Ext. 1 ). According to the plaintiff, after defendants 2 and 3 attained majority, defendants 6 to 8 in collusion with defendant 1 got a sale deed executed on 16-3-71 (Ext. A) by defendants 2 and 3 and defendant 5 as the mother guardian of defendant 4, in their favour. Armed with the said sale deed defendants 6 to 8 created disturbance in peaceful possession of the plaintiff for which a proceeding under S. 145 Cr. P. C. was started. The said proceeding having terminated in favour of defendants 6 to 8 the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs noticed earlier.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 6 to 8 contested the suit mainly on the grounds that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff conveyed no title since it was not backed by legal necessity or benefits of the minors; that no prior permission of the District Judge was taken before executing the sale deed; and that the sale being a voidable one, defendants 2 and 3 on attaining majority, avoided it by executing the subsequent sale deed. According to the defendants possession of the property was not delivered to the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE trial court. as noticed earlier, decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that the plaintiff had acquired title over the suit property on the basis of the said deed dt. 27-12-66 (Ext. 1) and the said sale deed having not been avoided by the minors within three years from the date of attaining majority by defendant 2 title of the plaintiff over the land became perfect and none of the minors could avoid the sale subsequently by selling the same land to defendants 6 to 8, under the sale deed dt. 16-3-71 (Ext. A ).

( 5 ) ON appeal by defendants 6 to 8, the lower appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court holding inter alia, that the prescribed period of limitation, that is, three years from the date of attainment of majority by defendant No. 2 had not elapsed by 16-3- 71 when the sale deed in favour of defendants 6 to 8 was executed. Referring to S. 8 (2) and (3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 the court held that since prior permission of the District Judge was admittedly not taken before the sale deed (Ext. 1) was executed, the transaction was voidable one and the minors could avoid it on attaining majority by executing the sale deed which they did in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff could not be said to have perfected his title on the basis of the document (Ext. 1) since the two minors had avoided it by executing the sale deed (Ext. A) and the third minor, defendant No. 4, had not yet come to the stage of exercising his option. On these findings the lower appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

( 6 ) THIS second appeal was admitted by this Court by order dt. 30-10-79 to examine the substantial question of law whether a voidable transaction can be avoided by another voidable transaction.

( 7 ) THE main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the suit since the minors on attaining majority could avoid the transfer made by their guardian only by filing a suit for the purpose